Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I personally believe the electoral college should be abolished, on the grounds that the way it is set up may not represent what the majority want.

Allow me to elaborate: during the election on Tuesday, I voted Obama. However, the state in which I lived went to McCain. That makes no sense: all the sudden, the people who voted Obama's votes didn't mean bull-diddly-squat, and all of the people in the state now represented the populace that wanted McCain as President, which couldn't be further from the truth in my case. I would've been better off sleeping in than casting my ballot.

At 11/6/08 03:51 PM, KeithHybrid wrote: I personally believe the electoral college should be abolished, on the grounds that the way it is set up may not represent what the majority want.

Allow me to elaborate: during the election on Tuesday, I voted Obama. However, the state in which I lived went to McCain. That makes no sense: all the sudden, the people who voted Obama's votes didn't mean bull-diddly-squat, and all of the people in the state now represented the populace that wanted McCain as President, which couldn't be further from the truth in my case. I would've been better off sleeping in than casting my ballot.

The system does sound kinda fishy. But I have a question. As you said, your vote for Obama was given to McCain because the majority of people in your state voted for McCain. However, does this apply even for people who don't vote?

At 11/6/08 03:55 PM, Drakim wrote: The system does sound kinda fishy. But I have a question. As you said, your vote for Obama was given to McCain because the majority of people in your state voted for McCain. However, does this apply even for people who don't vote?

I dont think you understand completely. Watch this

I dont see what the problem is with a direct vote. Obama/Biden or Mccain/Palin or of course the independants. And then whoever has the most votes wins.

At 11/6/08 03:57 PM, CaiWengi wrote:

At 11/6/08 03:55 PM, Drakim wrote: The system does sound kinda fishy. But I have a question. As you said, your vote for Obama was given to McCain because the majority of people in your state voted for McCain. However, does this apply even for people who don't vote?

I dont think you understand completely. Watch this

I dont see what the problem is with a direct vote. Obama/Biden or Mccain/Palin or of course the independants. And then whoever has the most votes wins.

Ah, now I see. But this means that...

Let's see. Imagine you have a really big state, full of people. And this state is overly supportive of candidate X.

This means, if you move to that state, and support candidate Y, your vote is probably not going to matter.

However, now, imagine another state, with not so many people. And this state is very divided by Candidate X and Y. In this case, if you move here, you might just tip the tide for candidate Y.

This means that the significance of your vote is based on where you live. D:

This effect would not apply in a popular vote, as every vote there is counted equal, no matter where it comes from.

I think the electorial college shouldn't be abolished, but adjusted.
What I don't hearing now is that Republicans are bitching about how unjust it was...

Yet, they don't mention about the 2000 election.

At 11/6/08 03:57 PM, CaiWengi wrote:

At 11/6/08 03:55 PM, Drakim wrote: The system does sound kinda fishy. But I have a question. As you said, your vote for Obama was given to McCain because the majority of people in your state voted for McCain. However, does this apply even for people who don't vote?

I dont think you understand completely. Watch this

I dont see what the problem is with a direct vote. Obama/Biden or Mccain/Palin or of course the independants. And then whoever has the most votes wins.

That's what I'm talking about: when the general elections come around, something akin to the popular vote. Majority rules. Isn't that the general idea of having elections?

I would either say switch to a popular vote mechanic, although that can be more prone to tampering, or balance out the electoral ballots depending on the votes in the state.

For example, lets say a state with 10 votes voted. 60% of the population wanted Senator McCain, and 40% wanted Obama. This would lead to 6 votes for McCain and 4 for Obama.

At 11/6/08 04:08 PM, ReiperX wrote: For example, lets say a state with 10 votes voted. 60% of the population wanted Senator McCain, and 40% wanted Obama. This would lead to 6 votes for McCain and 4 for Obama.

Thats exactly the same as a popular vote. Think about it.

well im happy Obama won but it's pretty silly that with only like a 6% lead in the popular vote he got a 33% lead with the electoral college.

Think about this, what does the electoral college really do? It makes it so only areas of the country that are ideologically divided choose the president, divided people are generally more easily manipulated than united people.

anyhow the electoral college is just one of many structural impediments to real democracy not nearly as bad as the nomination process.

I don't think that having an electoral college is entirely undemocratic, but at least they should split the electoral votes in each state, so that the amount of electoral votes given to each candidate in a certain state reflects the popular vote of said state.

California, for example. It has, what, 55 electoral votes? Let's say Barack Obama gets 60% of the Californian popular vote and John McCain gets 39%. Instead of giving all 55 electorates to Obama, they should be split in the 60-40 ratio, representing the result of the votes. Thus Obama would get 33 electorates and McCain 22.

Electoral:
Obama 364 McCain 163

Popular:
Obama 53% McCain 46%

Totally makes sense guys.

Cough..

And if we went according to this plan this would, in essence, entirely disenfranchise millions of Americans and basically mean that only Democrats would be in Washington for the forseable future.

My meaning is, that this would make the majority of states pointless to campaign in because there population isn't high enough for them to actually matter in comparison to the more population intense areas of the country.

I think the Electoral college is the best way to do it, it balances the demands of the majority of the nation against the power that a state should have and the residents in that state. While more preference is given to areas of high population which means more electoral votes (Florida, Michigan, California, New york), there is also strength in the other states with less population (Wyoming, Colarado, Alaska).

It's a perfect balance.

While I understand the idealogy of the electoral college, once Mccain loses a state, ALL votes casted for him in that state are in a sense completely cancelled. They don't matter at all towards the election of Mccain and I don't think that's right. When you take Obamas 64 million total votes compared to Mccains 56 million total votes, the populations vote on who should be president wasn't as clear cut as the electoral college makes it out to be.

Ok, so you say the electoral college spreads that votes out based on state population. Makes sense, I guess. To me that's saying a states populations vote is worth less just because the overall populatio is low. In my opinion that's unfair. So Cali gets 55 electoral votes cause they have a huge population and North Dakota gets 3 because their population is minimal. Uh...ok, but they're STILL part of the US population and that's who decides the president, it shouldn't be state factions. So going by my original point the 3.7 million people in california who voted for mccain and just told to fuck off.

US citizens who voted for their particular candidate should have their vote counted. Add up all of the votes by state who voted for a candidate and use that to determine who should be president. Because 56,735,146 Mccain supporters potentially got stiff armed just because their party is spread out differently between the states. Just because the population of democrats is heavily on the coasts and republicans are spread far between the south and and mid western states means their vote isn't worth as much? That's fucking insane.

I voted for Obama but I sympathize with the voting public. The system sucks. It doesn't necessarily need a complete reform, but it deserves to be looked at.

You know, theoretically a candidate with 74% of the popular vote could still LOSE the electoral collage? Think about it, 50 states. 24 of them vote 100% A, and 26 of them vote 51% B. B would win, even though 74% of the population wanted A. Wouldn't that suck? Just food for thought.

At 11/6/08 04:45 PM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: You know, theoretically a candidate with 74% of the popular vote could still LOSE the electoral collage? Think about it, 50 states. 24 of them vote 100% A, and 26 of them vote 51% B. B would win, even though 74% of the population wanted A. Wouldn't that suck? Just food for thought.

You forgot that all states have different amount of electorates. You can win the election simply by winning "26 of the states", if they don't have enough electoral votes.

And now that I look at your post again, it looks like you also seem to be counting as if every state has equally many citizens. wtf?

At 11/6/08 04:50 PM, AapoJoki wrote: You can win the election simply by winning "26 of the states", if they don't have enough electoral votes.

I meant you CAN'T*

Damnit, sorry for the confusion.

At 11/6/08 04:30 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: My meaning is, that this would make the majority of states pointless to campaign in because there population isn't high enough for them to actually matter in comparison to the more population intense areas of the country.

So? The current system leaves states with high populations completey ignored while the whole election is around Iowa corn farmers. Candidates make it so their polocies fit the needs of small swing demographics.

I think the Electoral college is the best way to do it, it balances the demands of the majority of the nation against the power that a state should have and the residents in that state.

Fuck the power a state should have. States rights havent meant much in a long time.
I dont like the electoral college at all. Im not even for tweaking the system. I want it gone.

A better, easier to implement and enforce decision would be to count Electoral votes the way Maine and Nebraska does. Each Congressional District gives 1 Electoral vote, and the majority winner in the district gets the vote. Each district counts as a separate part, so an entire state won't go to one person unless each district in the state votes for the person.

Then, whoever won the majority of the districts of the state gets the 2 Electoral votes that represent the 2 Senators of the state.

This method allows only an Absolute Majority winner to become President. If this was implemented in the past few elections, Gore would've won in 2000, Bush in 2004, and Obama in 2008.

What most of you guys are saying, splitting the votes in states, is already used in Maine and Nebraska.

This version is a lot more democratic than the current version.

At 11/6/08 04:36 PM, MattHarty wrote: While I understand the idealogy of the electoral college, once Mccain loses a state, ALL votes casted for him in that state are in a sense completely cancelled. They don't matter at all towards the election of Mccain and I don't think that's right. When you take Obamas 64 million total votes compared to Mccains 56 million total votes, the populations vote on who should be president wasn't as clear cut as the electoral college makes it out to be.

That was what I said in my opening post: I voted in a state that went red, but I'm as blue as the fucking sky. I was better off staying in bed than going through the trouble of casting my vote.

It seems like there's an argument over this almost every election nowadays. What ever happened to being gracious in defeat?

and I'm even saying that as a McCain supporter.

The whole "winner take all" thing with each state doesn't make sense to me. To win a state by a thin hair and still take ALL of its electoral votes just doesn't seem right. That there's EVER a disparity between electoral vote figures and popular vote figures (or the simple fact that two seperate vote tallies even exists) pretty much says to me that the whole system is suspect.

That and the documentary "Uncounted" makes me wary of the whole thing.

At 11/6/08 04:30 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: And if we went according to this plan this would, in essence, entirely disenfranchise millions of Americans and basically mean that only Democrats would be in Washington for the forseable future.

That's not true.
Obama won the popular vote too, so he still WOULD be president even if we abolished the electorial college.

I think the Electoral college is the best way to do it, it balances the demands of the majority of the nation against the power that a state should have and the residents in that state. While more preference is given to areas of high population which means more electoral votes (Florida, Michigan, California, New york), there is also strength in the other states with less population (Wyoming, Colarado, Alaska).

No, I don't think that's true.
If we look per person, my individual vote is still less than a person than the guy up in Oregon. And that's because CA is a bigger state with a bigger population, and Oreagon is a smaller state with a smaller population.

So, it equalizes us. CA will still have a bigger number, but the inviduals at the other side has greater individual voting power.

It's a perfect balance.

With the partisan nature of the country right now, I would argue that we need the electoral vote more than ever.

I'm sure you all remember 2000, when Florida was very close, and thus resulted in a messy recount/attempt at recount.

Now imagine a close presidential election, where the popular vote was within 10,000 votes. What we saw happen in Florida in 2000 would happen nationwide. You would have court battles in every single state over what ballots to admit and what not to admit, which would be further confused by the inconsistent voting standards across each state. It would really put a strain on our democracy and really deepen the split between red and blue states.

Are you an idiot?

The electoral college gives values to states.

Without it, Places like Montana with a population of 200,000 would be represented as equally as california with a population of what? nine million?

At 11/6/08 05:23 PM, dySWN wrote: It seems like there's an argument over this almost every election nowadays. What ever happened to being gracious in defeat?

Actually, I'm an Obama supporter. I'm happy Obama won. I'm just not happy that my vote wound up going to McCain when I damn well voted Obama. I want my vote to go towards the candidate I want as President, not to be lumped up with the majority in my state and given to the candidate I do not want as President.

At 11/6/08 04:50 PM, AapoJoki wrote:

At 11/6/08 04:45 PM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: You know, theoretically a candidate with 74% of the popular vote could still LOSE the electoral collage? Think about it, 50 states. 24 of them vote 100% A, and 26 of them vote 51% B. B would win, even though 74% of the population wanted A. Wouldn't that suck? Just food for thought.

You forgot that all states have different amount of electorates. You can win the election simply by winning "26 of the states", if they don't have enough electoral votes.

And now that I look at your post again, it looks like you also seem to be counting as if every state has equally many citizens. wtf?

True, true, if you put all of the states voting A as being the high number states and B as low or vice versus, but if you divide them down the middle with the state with the most electoral votes being team B, second best being A, third is B, fourth A and so on until it's over then the basic principle of what I said still holds true. I admit it is an incredible long shot, never ever going to happen, but the fact that it is mathematically possible is entirely rediculous and is very compelling evidence to scrap the system.

At 11/6/08 07:10 PM, Phratt wrote: Are you an idiot?

The electoral college gives values to states.

Without it, Places like Montana with a population of 200,000 would be represented as equally as california with a population of what? nine million?

I don't think you have the ground to be calling someone else an idiot.

1. Montana's population is nearly 1,000,000
2. California's population is over 36,000,000
3. Without the electoral college, the values would be that state's popular vote--California would be worth 36 times Montana, because it has 36 times the voters.

At 11/6/08 04:56 PM, aninjaman wrote:

At 11/6/08 04:30 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

So? The current system leaves states with high populations completey ignored while the whole election is around Iowa corn farmers. Candidates make it so their polocies fit the needs of small swing demographics.

First off, the Iowa example that you use is evident of the Iowa caucaus, which is for the primaries.

And no, they don't ignore states with higher populations since states with higher populations have high electoral votes. Thats why the candidates tried so hard in Pennslyvania, Ohio, Michigan and Florida.

At 11/6/08 06:40 PM, fli wrote:

At 11/6/08 04:30 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

That's not true.
Obama won the popular vote too, so he still WOULD be president even if we abolished the electorial college.

We don't base an entire election process on one individual election, nor would I. I'm not denying that he didn't win the popular vote, because he did. Likewise with the electoral vote because he was able to get a more spread vote across the American states and thus, win the election.
Clinton in 1992 only won 42% or 43% of the popular vote, but he won the election because of his strength across several electoral states and not just in a few high densisty positions.

No, I don't think that's true.
If we look per person, my individual vote is still less than a person than the guy up in Oregon. And that's because CA is a bigger state with a bigger population, and Oreagon is a smaller state with a smaller population.

Which is how there electoral votes are decided, of course.

So, it equalizes us. CA will still have a bigger number, but the inviduals at the other side has greater individual voting power.

I understand where your going(sort of) but how does this factor in. I mean people in Alaska will probally have an even greater voting power, but they'll still be stunted on electoral votes due to a smaller population, or maybe there is something I'm missing here from you.