Seriously, this is why the democrats win almost all the time. It's the reason why conservatives who live in big liberal states like california and new york don't vote. Also, look how close Florida was for Romney. Electoral Colleges may have worked 200 years ago, but today, it just doesn't work. So my solution? Get rid of it. 1 man, 1 vote.

It's only a matter of time before Obama declares himself as king and gets rid of house and senate. Though if electoral colleges didn't exist, I bet Romney would have won. A reason to why it needs to go.

Have you heard of the popular vote? Obama still won.

At 1/23/13 01:38 PM, hateyou1 wrote: Seriously, this is why the democrats win almost all the time. It's the reason why conservatives who live in big liberal states like california and new york don't vote. Also, look how close Florida was for Romney. Electoral Colleges may have worked 200 years ago, but today, it just doesn't work. So my solution? Get rid of it. 1 man, 1 vote.

I agree

At 1/23/13 02:19 PM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote: Have you heard of the popular vote? Obama still won.

Because of electoral colleges. People who live in liberal states like Washington, California, New York, don't vote because the electors (the individuals in each state that votes for the president and vice president) are the ones who vote. So if 55% of a state voted obama and 45% voted romney, the state vote would be Obama. Now, if you had a system in where every individual vote counts, then Obama would have lost since the individuals who didn't vote in the small liberal states would vote against him and then Romney could have won.

Let's just say the election would have been much closer if electoral colleges didn't exist.

I get the impression you wouldn't be making this thread if Romney had won..

Stop being an immature little dweeb and throwing all your toys out the pram just because you didn't get what you wanted.

If you want an example of when the voting system was truly abused look no further than the last republican president George Bush in 2000.

At 1/23/13 01:49 PM, hateyou1 wrote: It's only a matter of time before Obama declares himself as king and gets rid of house and senate. Though if electoral colleges didn't exist, I bet Romney would have won. A reason to why it needs to go.

Obama won the popular vote anyway by a 2% margin.

At 1/23/13 03:03 PM, Fim wrote: Stop being an immature little dweeb and throwing all your toys out the pram just because you didn't get what you wanted.

If you want an example of when the voting system was truly abused look no further than the last republican president George Bush in 2000.

LOL @ butthurt over someone criticizing your savior

If each state split it's electoral votes to best fit the ratio of the popular vote, then the electoral college wouldn't be broken. Now either in the current or my system Obama would have won because he did get the popular vote by a healthy margin but it wouldn't be 320 somethin to 200 somethin it'd be more like 270 somethin to 260 somethin in favor of Obama.

There are 2 million more votes for Obama that say you're wrong.

You lost. BYE.

At 1/23/13 03:15 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 1/23/13 03:03 PM, Fim wrote: Stop being an immature little dweeb and throwing all your toys out the pram just because you didn't get what you wanted.

If you want an example of when the voting system was truly abused look no further than the last republican president George Bush in 2000.

LOL @ butthurt over someone criticizing your savior

LemonCrush. You come to the table with absolutely NO argument. Am seriously just going to ignore you're stupid remarks from now on ;) xxx

I'm very glad your realm of political influence is confined to the forums of newgrounds, where it can be safely ignored.

No. Electoral colleges are just flawed period. It defeats the main purpose of voting. Instead of individuals voting like the way it should be, it's state electors voting for us. You can't tell me that is how a fair election is supposed to go. I know it's what the founding fathers wanted, but times are changing. Look, we can debate whether Barack Obama would be a better president than Mitt Romney, but at the end of the day, it's electoral colleges that are the problem. They need to go. They're the reason why a lot of conservatives didn't vote in 2012.

At 1/23/13 03:30 PM, Camarohusky wrote: There are 2 million more votes for Obama that say you're wrong.

You lost. BYE.

Typical lefty response.

At 1/23/13 03:03 PM, Fim wrote: I get the impression you wouldn't be making this thread if Romney had won..

Stop being an immature little dweeb and throwing all your toys out the pram just because you didn't get what you wanted.

If you want an example of when the voting system was truly abused look no further than the last republican president George Bush in 2000.

So when a democrat wins an election, it's legit. When a republican wins, they cheated? That's all you really said. Again, left wing rhetoric. I want facts. I want reason. I want logic. I don't want rhetoric.

At 1/23/13 04:16 PM, hateyou1 wrote:

At 1/23/13 03:03 PM, Fim wrote:

::

So when a democrat wins an election, it's legit. When a republican wins, they cheated? That's all you really said. Again, left wing rhetoric. I want facts. I want reason. I want logic. I don't want rhetoric.

I'm not biased towards either party, I think each election should be a unique choice between who has the better policies, and this time I feel that Obama measured up better than Romney did. Do I agree with everything Obama does? Absolutely not, but I also don't think it's fair to believe everything Fox news prints about him. In this scenario he won fair and square no matter what way you look at the data.

What I was referencing before was that there was much more controversy over how Bush 'won' the election in 2000 which a lot of Republicans seem to have forgotten. Here is the total break down of the facts : -

2012
Obama - 51.1%, 65,899,660 votes. With an electoral vote of 332 in 26 states.
Romney - 47.2%, 60,929,152 votes. With an electoral vote of 206 in 24. *link

If you compare that with how Bush won the election : -

2000
Bush - 47.9%, 50,456,002 votes, with just 271 (270 is the minimum majority to hold office) in 30 states.
Gore - 48.4%, 50,999,897 votes with 266 in 20 states. * linky

I'm giving you no rhetoric here, the way the democrats won the election this year is completely valid when you compare it to how the last Republican won.

Bush won because he won the key state Florida. You think it's not fair that Fox covered Obama badly? Then tell me why every single media outlet made Romney look like an ass while they worshiped Obama like he was a god. Did he discuss the debt and the thousands of jobless individuals in the country during the inauguration 2 days ago? Not at all. This guy is a lying politician plain and simple. However, I don't need to reiterate the reasons on why Romney would have been the better choice since it's been done millions of times.

The point is, electoral colleges defeats the purpose of voting. The results would have been different if it was self individual votes instead of electoral votes, I promise you that, and you would also get much more voters (who most would vote Romney).

At 1/23/13 03:33 PM, Fim wrote: LemonCrush. You come to the table with absolutely NO argument. Am seriously just going to ignore you're stupid remarks from now on ;) xxx

I'm very glad your realm of political influence is confined to the forums of newgrounds, where it can be safely ignored.

So much butthurt :D

At 1/23/13 04:49 PM, hateyou1 wrote: Bush won because he won the key state Florida.

Well, that's still very contentious issue. My point was that in 2000 the guy with the less votes managed to beat the guy with more votes, which seems much more unfair that the situation now. If the democrats had to live with that abomination of a decision you have to stick out Obama now.

You think it's not fair that Fox covered Obama badly? Then tell me why every single media outlet made Romney look like an ass while they worshiped Obama like he was a god. Did he discuss the debt and the thousands of jobless individuals in the country during the inauguration 2 days ago? Not at all. This guy is a lying politician plain and simple.

I thought it was you who wanted me to talk with evidence and not just with rhetoric :P

However, I don't need to reiterate the reasons on why Romney would have been the better choice since it's been done millions of times.

Please enlighten me? Say what you like about Obama but he's not a mormon, and he doesn't use phrases like 'legitimate rape', and he doesn't have off shore bank accounts in switzerland, unlike Romney.

The point is, electoral colleges defeats the purpose of voting. The results would have been different if it was self individual votes instead of electoral votes, I promise you that,

I just gave you data stating that Obama beat Romeny by almost 5 individual million votes anyway.

you would also get much more voters (who most would vote Romney).

This rhetoric again? You've got no evidence for that whhhhatsoever champ, that's your personal speculation.

At 1/23/13 03:30 PM, Camarohusky wrote: There are 2 million more votes for Obama that say you're wrong.

You lost. BYE.

What about examples where in Ohio districts more votes just for Obama were cast then there were eligible voters.

At 1/23/13 05:35 PM, Ceratisa wrote: What about examples where in Ohio districts more votes just for Obama were cast then there were eligible voters.

What about them? (Ive been through this with others, there is NO proof of that)

Obama still won enough electoral votes to win without Ohio.

At 1/23/13 04:49 PM, hateyou1 wrote: Bush won because he won the key state Florida.

As another posted indicated, that is still controversial, albeit a moot point now. It would be more accurate to say the Supreme Court awarded Florida to Bush through judicial order.

You think it's not fair that Fox covered Obama badly?

Personally, I don't care if they cover him badly, as long as they cover him fairly, which, with the notable exception of Fox News, I haven't had a problem with most mainstream media coverage. Some of it was critical of Obama, but it was legitimate criticism. That I don't mind.

Then tell me why every single media outlet made Romney look like an ass

No, sorry, Mitt built that.

while they worshiped Obama like he was a god.

MSNBC, maybe. Fox and CNN hardly did so. Many newspapers were also very critical of Obama while at the same time endorsing him for re-election over the apathetic candidacy of Willard Mitt Romney.

Did he discuss the debt and the thousands of jobless individuals in the country during the inauguration 2 days ago?

From the inaugural address: We understand that outworn programs are inadequate to the needs of our time. We must harness new ideas and technology to remake our government, revamp our tax code, reform our schools, and empower our citizens with the skills they need to work harder, learn more, and reach higher. But while the means will change, our purpose endures: a nation that rewards the effort and determination of every single American. That is what this moment requires. That is what will give real meaning to our creed.
We, the people, still believe that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security and dignity. We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit. But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future.For we remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty, and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn. We do not believe that in this country, freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us, at any time, may face a job loss, or a sudden illness, or a home swept away in a terrible storm. The commitments we make to each other - through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security - these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.

Maybe you should read or watch the speech before criticizing it.

Not at all. This guy is a lying politician plain and simple. However, I don't need to reiterate the reasons on why Romney would have been the better choice since it's been done millions of times.

I have my own disagreements with Obama, but given the choice, I'm glad I voted for him rather than Romney, whose policies have not only been debunked numerous times on this forum, but would have resulted in a crippling level of federal deficit / national debt increases.

The point is, electoral colleges defeats the purpose of voting.

Have you even taken a civics class? Do you know how the electoral college works, or why it was implemented? The electoral college was added as a way to safeguard the political participation of smaller states by giving them power that is proportional to their population as a fraction of the total American population. Without it, where do you think candidates would spend their time in modern America? Liberal states wouldn't hear from conservative candidates, conservative states wouldn't hear from liberal candidates. Now that is still true to some extent today, but the really important part is that the electoral college transforms a state like Vermont (which had 299k votes cast in 2012, or .0023% of the total votes cast) into a state that wields a little more power, holding 3 of 538 votes instead of 500k of 125 million (.0056%, roughly double the power they would have in a popular vote system). It puts states on a more equal playing field when it comes to national campaigns, and allows more citizens to have more access to candidates.

Furthermore, the Constitution sets up the electoral college in such a way that citizens don't actually vote for president. When you are voting, you are technically voting on how your state's electoral college representatives will vote in the electoral college. If conservatives are too fucking stupid to understand this, it's probably better off that they don't vote.

The results would have been different if it was self individual votes instead of electoral votes, I promise you that, and you would also get much more voters (who most would vote Romney).

You speculate a lot. You can't prove the results would have been different, regardless of the method used to elect a President. You can't prove that you would get more voters, and you can't prove that most of them would have voted for Romney. In fact, considering recent poll numbers showing that a majority of Americans support a progressive agenda, I would argue that even if it did bring more people to the polls, a plurality of them (if not a majority) would have broken for Obama, not Romney.

Electoral colleges are just flawed period.

Perhaps, and I am willing to listen to serious, thought out proposals about how it should be reformed. But doing away with it entirely is bad policy.

It defeats the main purpose of voting.

Not really.

Instead of individuals voting like the way it should be, it's state electors voting for us.

After we hold our own elections and tell them how to vote. It's funny how people leave out these convenient little details.

You can't tell me that is how a fair election is supposed to go.

A fair election is supposed to reflect the will of the people. Considering polling reflected a 91% chance of Obama victory the day before the election, I would argue last year's election was fair and accurate. So get over it. And no, I won't change your diaper for you.

I know it's what the founding fathers wanted

It's not just the founding fathers, it has also survived 230-odd years of being susceptible to amendment.

but times are changing.

So wait, conservatives can use this argument when it suits them, but cry foul when it is used against them?

Look, we can debate whether Barack Obama would be a better president than Mitt Romney,

That's a debate you will have problems winning.

but at the end of the day, it's electoral colleges that are the problem.

You still haven't shown any prima facie reason why electoral colleges are the problem. You demand real reasons, facts and logic from us, but show none of your own.

They need to go.

Eh, not so much.

They're the reason why a lot of conservatives didn't vote in 2012.

No, Mitt built that. It doesn't help that the GOP has a track-record of infighting dating back to 2007, which has created a lot of confusion among Conservatives about who is actually leading their party and what their beliefs really are. The Tea Party just added another angle to that problem.

At 1/23/13 07:15 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 1/23/13 05:35 PM, Ceratisa wrote: What about examples where in Ohio districts more votes just for Obama were cast then there were eligible voters.

What about them? (Ive been through this with others, there is NO proof of that)

Obama still won enough electoral votes to win without Ohio.

No proof? Look at registered voters how is 108% of an entire district voting for one candidate not fishy?

At 1/23/13 08:36 PM, Ceratisa wrote: No proof? Look at registered voters how is 108% of an entire district voting for one candidate not fishy?

Because Obama is a black democrat with millions of dollars and the power to keep the rich rich.

No one has a reason to call him out, and if you do, you're subject to threats of violence or accusations of racism.

At 1/23/13 09:42 PM, RacistBassist wrote: Ok, how about we approach this from a non Democrat vs Republican view? Could we all agree that a direct popular vote for the nations highest office would be preferable to an electoral college?

Absolutely.

Though, it is much easier to enjoy it when it's the all or nothing electoral vote. That being said, the purpose of the election isn't to mimic watching a football game on espn gamecast...

At 1/23/13 08:36 PM, Ceratisa wrote: No proof? Look at registered voters how is 108% of an entire district voting for one candidate not fishy?

Let's say I'm Missouri, the Show Me State.

Show me something more than just your assertion.

I've always been a fan of the EC. Back in the day it was meant to both temper the passions of the people with wisdom and solve the problem of how someone living in upstate Maine could know the candidates enough to make an informed decision. The latter was in the age of wagons and about 50-60 years before the electrical telegraph.

I would argue that not much has changed. On the first reason; we are still a population that is ruled by our passions. We are better educated now (since WWII human knowledge has doubled from what it was from the first human to pre-WWII). But at the same time we are de-emphasizing social studies as we over-emphasize math and science as we push our kids to pursue subjects only with the goal of pursuing lucrative careers. Money over being good citizens. Therefore, on both sides of the ideological spectrum...we have people who do not think too deeply about issues nor do they research what elected officals and other opinion-makers/leaders tell them. We are becoming a nation of Sheople.

As for the second part...I'm not sure that we are anymore informed than we were back in the 1790s. We may actually be less informed. People on the Left listen to MSNBC and Sirius Left talk shows. People on the Right listen to Fox and their group of talk radio hosts. And more and more...people are becoming insular and insulated in their news. They do not consider the points of either side. Worse yet...those who cannot be bothered with paying attention to politics and their civic duty make decisions based upon sound bites.

So I wonder if we need to reform the EC. What about assigning one elector to each congressional district? As for the 100 EVs distributed for Senators...perhaps let each state decide how to approtion these. A few thoughts:

Based on vote:
* If for some reaason no one would win 50% of the vote...the top two leaders would get one elector each.
* If a candidate gets at least 45% of the vote...they get an EC. In the case that only one candidate gets 45% of the vote...then the next highest candidate gets an EV.
* If a candidate gets at least 55%...they are awarded both EVs.

Based on demographics:
* Divide states along rural and urban voters. Urban dwellers get one EV and Rural dwellers get one EV.

At 1/24/13 12:13 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Let's say I'm Missouri, the Show Me State.

Show me something more than just your assertion.

I'm lovin' it!

At 1/23/13 09:42 PM, RacistBassist wrote: Ok, how about we approach this from a non Democrat vs Republican view? Could we all agree that a direct popular vote for the nations highest office would be preferable to an electoral college?

Nope. Quite simply, we need to have some wisdom temper the passions of the electorate. After all, the presidency is not the nation's highest office. It is our only national office. But the Judicial and Legislative branches are co-equal.

I remember when Joe Wilson called Obama a liar. I had a buddy of min in the Air Guard relate it to our command structure. Our DO (basically second in command) cannot call our commanding officer a liar...since our commander (who held the same rank) outranked the DO due to position. If anything, under the Constitution the presidency would be subservient to congress since the Founders invested more power in the legislature. So if our electorate does not understand how our government works...how can they make the best choice for high office?

At 1/24/13 10:50 AM, TheMason wrote: So I wonder if we need to reform the EC. What about assigning one elector to each congressional district?

There's actually a push, by republican lawmakers, in several (leaning-blue) states to do just this. It would significantly alter the awarding of their EC's. In Virginia, for instance, where Obama won by carrying 51% of the popular vote, and got all of it's 13 EVs, if you went by district Obama would have only won 4 EVs, and Romney would have won 9.

to the OP: The EC is fine. Only once since 1888 has it not reflected the popular vote (2000). Instead of gaming the system to leverage their 2010 gerrymandering, maybe republicans should widen their tent a bit and actually start representing the views of a larger portion of the electorate. Demographics are changing, and it's going to be even more difficult in 2016 for Repubs (barring an economic collapse) to win (polls currently show Dems strongly in the majority in enough states to reliably win 283 EVs on the reg). With an increasing number of minority and young voters, whose economic and social (respectively) views tend to the left, the Reps need to do some serious soul-searching about where they want to plant their flags.

What about a simple deathmatch to decide who gets elected? Obama could have had a hammer and sickle, and Romney could have used a sock full of silver coins along with a shield made out of the skins of brown people.

At 1/24/13 07:18 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: What about a simple deathmatch to decide who gets elected? Obama could have had a hammer and sickle, and Romney could have used a sock full of silver coins along with a shield made out of the skins of brown people.

That is called leather...

When will you Republicans stop bitching about Obama winning? The Democrats had to deal with Bush winning his reelection so stop being a big baby and just except that Obama won! Also, are you forgetting that Bush would not have won his first election if it was not because of the electoral college? You Republicans sure did not bitch about how we should base it on the popular vote back then.

Finally I would like to point out how the electoral vote helps Republicans a lot more then Democrats. Look at Alaska, it almost always votes Republican, it has a very small population and if we did not have the electoral vote there vote would be completely useless for it would have no real influence in the election. The population of the city of New York alone dwarfs Alaska's entire population. With the electoral vote Alaska at lest has a small amount of influence in the election. Its not just Alaska. The states of Arizona, Utah, Nevada, and Kansas all tend to vote Republican and like Alaska they all have small populations.

At 1/24/13 10:12 PM, Jmayer20 wrote: When will you Republicans stop bitching about Obama winning? The Democrats had to deal with Bush winning his reelection so stop being a big baby and just except that Obama won!

Did they accept it? I only recall them screaming and crying about him. Wanting him impeached. Some wanting him dead. Others denying his presidency altogether. Democrats and Obama deserve worse.