Granted that democracy is popular, but America was not set up has a democracy, it was set up has a representative republic. Even U.S. Constitution forbids America from becoming a democracy! I really can't understand why American's are growing away from thier own Constitution.

 

 

 

#-o

 

 

 

 

 

Abolition of Electoral College under way

 

Change would give control of White House to handful of states

 

 

 

A movement is sweeping the nation that could eliminate the Electoral College in national elections, and with it much of this country's republican form of government, instead giving unstoppable control over the White House to any coalition the major population centers would choose to create.

 

 

 

Maryland's state legislature already has given approval to a proposal that would, in conjunction with other states' efforts, eliminate the college, and similar plans have already been approved by single legislative houses in Hawaii, Colorado and Arizona. In seven more states ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ Washington, Montana, California, New Mexico, Louisiana, West Virginia and Connecticut ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ the plans have been endorsed by legislative committees.

 

 

 

And in 28 more states the proposals have been introduced while legislative writers in another eight states are working on plans, according to a report from the group called National Popular Vote, which is lobbying for the change.

 

 

 

The procedure to elect a president in the United States, although it had happened in the past, became an issue for activists when in 2000 George W. Bush collected fewer popular votes than Al Gore, but because of the concentration of those votes in key states, collected the necessary 270 electoral college votes for the presidency. Electoral college votes are equal to the size of a state's congressional delegation, and are awarded based largely on the winner of the popular vote in those states.

 

 

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=55064

I agree with this. whoever has the most popular votes should get elected, not people with convient concintrations of people. Even though I think Al Gore would not be a good president, he did get cheated out of the presidency and the popular vote is simply a fairer way of election. the electoral collage was created back when it was not possible to count every single popular vote.

The ninth grade version of myself says this and I agree! (Sources removed for ease of reading)

 

 

 

The Electoral College Needs to be Abolished

 

 

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅWe need to trust the voters in a way that the founders, two centuries ago, did notÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

I'm kind of confused by this whole thing, but anyway... I think that people should directly elect government officials.

 

 

 

Good grief... I know nothing about the government.

While I agree that the electoral college should be abolished, it's not that easy. It will lead to candidates like those for the 2008 Presidency only traveling to highly populated states and cities. This will lead to a lot of smaller states being ignored.

 

 

 

It's a loose loose situation.

2000 seems like such a long time ago. I was so young that I still remember what went on, but very cloudedly.

I strongly disagree that the Electoral College should be abolished. Doing so would alienate all of the smaller states and grant all of the power to the larger states. The Electoral College was designed so that every state has equal representation, so that is is impossible for only the largest states to decide the fate of the election. In other words, this system was designed so that it is possible for an election to be won without gaining the popular vote.

 

 

 

In a purely democratic system, more loosely populated states would have no importance, so why even consider them? They dont matter. Who cares about a barren patch of land that has only 500,000 people? We don't need their vote...

 

 

 

Realistically, the Electoral College will never be abolished. It is one of the fundamental principals of the Constitution of the United States and though a few may attempt to abolish it, the process is very clear and, in this case, insurmountable, as it would alienate the very states that would be needed to pass the amendment.

 

 

 

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that ... no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

 

 

 

Proposing the Amendment:

 

1. Two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives

 

 

 

or

 

 

 

2. Two thirds of the State Legislatures.

 

 

 

So, just to get the Amendment proposed, you would need Congressmen or Legislatures from 34 of the 50 states to vote for it. If the vote fell strictly along population lines, then states like Utah (5 votes), Arkansas/Kansas/Mississippi (6 votes) and Iowa/Conneticut/Oregon/Oklahoma (7 votes) would all have to vote for it. If any one of those did not vote for it, or any other state, then the vote for would have to come from the 16 least populated states.

 

 

 

Ratifying the Amendment:

 

1. Three-fourths of the State Legislatures

 

 

 

or

 

 

 

2. Three-fourths of State Conventions

 

 

 

Congress decides which method of ratification is used and historically, the only proposed amendment to use the convention method was the 21st Amendment, which repealed the 18th Amendment (Prohibition).

 

 

 

So, in this case you would need the Legislatures (or conventions) from 38 of the 50 states to vote for the abolition of the Electoral College. This means, that in addition to Utah (5 votes), Arkansas/Kansas/Mississippi (6 votes) and Iowa/Conneticut/Oregon/Oklahoma (7 votes), you would also need the approval of Nevada, New Mexico, West Virginia and Nebraska (all 5 votes).

 

 

 

All of this so that the metropolitan areas of New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago,Washington DC,Boston,San Francisco, Philadelphia, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Miami, Detroit, Phoenix, Seattle, Minneapolis, San Diego, Denver, Cleveland, St Louis, Tampa, Pittsburgh, Sacramento, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Portland, Orlando, Kansas City, Indianapolis and Columbus could dictate to the rest of the country who is to be president.

 

 

 

If that were true, a candidate would only have to campaign in New York, California, Washington DC, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Texas, Georgia, Minnesota, Colorado, Ohio, Missouri, Florida, Oregon, Washington, North Carolina and Indiana. Even then, they would not have to campaign in anything but the major population centers.

 

 

 

Do you honestly think that the elected representatives of the lesser populated areas of the United States will ever allow this??

 

 

 

I know they won't...ever.

 

 

 

Besides, all of this stink has come about because Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000 and George W Bush won the election. Does anyone remember the electoral count? 271-266

 

 

 

Do you know what that means? Florida was not the reason Gore lost. Since 1968, Florida has only voted Democrat twice. In other words, in the last 10 elections, Republicans have won Florida 80% of the time.

 

 

 

Gore lost because he did not even win the votes of his home state of Tennessee, which voted for Clinton in both elections and elected Gore four times as a representative and twice as a senator.

 

 

 

Thats why he lost, he ignored the little guy. He ignored his home state, and you dont win an election if you lose your home state. The only president to ever do so was James Polk, when he won the 1844 election, but lost in Tennessee.

While the idea of an electoral college doesn't appear quite as silly as it did the first time I had it explained to me, the fact that where a voter live decides the weight of his vote strikes me as undemocratic.

 

 

 

Would it possible to, say, increase the number of all electorate votes across the board by ten, to allow a finer division of the votes to more accurately reflect voters?

One system I read about in my gov't book that sounded interesting would have the regular system, but the winner of the popular election gets +100 electoral votes or something like that :)

While the idea of an electoral college doesn't appear quite as silly as it did the first time I had it explained to me, the fact that where a voter live decides the weight of his vote strikes me as undemocratic.

 

 

 

Would it possible to, say, increase the number of all electorate votes across the board by ten, to allow a finer division of the votes to more accurately reflect voters?

 

 

 

Nebraska and Maine (one is being proposed in Colorado as well) have a proportionate system for allocating their electoral votes.

 

 

 

The proportionate system works like this:

 

 

 

The winner of each district wins one electoral vote.

 

 

 

The winner state-wide gets two electoral votes.

 

 

 

Example: I live in Washington State and we have nine districts. In 2004, Kerry won the statewide vote. If the nine districts voted along party lines (meaning the districs that elected Democrat representatives also voted for Kerry), then Kerry would have received 6 votes for winning districts 1,2,3,6,7 and 9 and 2 votes for winning the statewide vote, giving him 8 total votes from Washington and giving Bush 3 votes for winning Districts 4,5 and 8.

 

 

 

Personally, I think that this is a nice system to use. Here in Washington it would mean that a candidate would not be able to sweep the state vote by winning King, Pierce, Snohomish and Kitsap counties.

 

 

 

the fact that where a voter live decides the weight of his vote strikes me as undemocratic.

 

 

 

 

Where a person lives doesnt necessarily decide the weight of a persons vote. There are 538 total electoral votes. 102 of them are split up 2 each state and 2 for the District of Columbia. The other 436 are given one per representative district. Representative districts are decided by population, thus more populous states naturally have more votes (California 55, New York 31, Texas 34). The problem arises when candidates concentrate their attention on only the population centers and don't actively seek the vote of the rural areas, since you only need the 11 most populous states to win (California, Texas, New York, Florida, Ohio, Illinois, New Jersey, North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan and Pennsylvania).

 

 

 

This was the tactic Gore tried to use in the 2000 election and it backfired on him. He lost Texas (never would have had it, really), Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina and, of course, Florida. Like I said in my earlier post, everyone likes to cry about Florida, but had he only won his home state of Tennessee, he would have won anyway, with or without Florida. The fact that only 20 of the 50 states and DC elected him cost him the election. In reality, he really only needed to win West Virginia (5 votes), which was traditionally a Democrat state, and he would have won the election.

 

 

 

The bottom line for the Electoral College is to ensure that States and not just people receive equal representation. The United States is not, nor has it ever been a democracy. The United States is a representative republic of 50 semi-sovereign states. We use a democratic process, but we are not a democracy.

With electoral college its unfair to larger states. Without electoral college, its unfair to the smaller states.

With electoral college its unfair to larger states. Without electoral college, its unfair to the smaller states.

 

 

 

I'm not sure I understand how the Electoral College is unfair to larger states. All representation is equal. Each state gets 2 electoral votes and each congressional district gets 1 electoral vote. Washington state has 9 congressional districts, so Washington State gets 11 votes. California has 53 congressional districts, so California gets 55 electoral votes. Hawaii has 1 congressional district, so Hawaii gets 3 electoral votes.

 

 

 

Seems pretty fair to everyone to me. The only candidates that experience difficulty with this system are the ones that primarily target urban areas and ignore everything else (like Gore in 2000)

So wait, I never quit fully understood this but:

 

 

 

 

 

If you win in a state (regards of majority) that's all the matters. At the end of an election, whoever holds the majority of state victories ends up as president? In simple - that correct?

 

 

 

 

 

Man, that be the case - Australia's electral system actually works pretty well, and I thought it had some flaws :|

So wait, I never quit fully understood this but:

 

 

 

 

 

If you win in a state (regards of majority) that's all the matters. At the end of an election, whoever holds the majority of state victories ends up as president? In simple - that correct?

 

 

 

 

 

Man, that be the case - Australia's electral system actually works pretty well, and I thought it had some flaws :|

 

 

 

It's actually a bit more complicated than that.

 

 

 

Article I of the US Constitution sets up the Legislative branch of government.

 

The Senate has 2 members elected per state and is the house of congress that provides representatives for the states. Since there are 2 Senators per state, all states are equal in the Senate.

 

The House of Representatives is the house of congress that represents the people. Each state has a number of representatives proportionate to their population. (the current average is approximately 1 representative per 650,000 citizens)

 

 

 

Article II of the US Constitution sets up the Executive branch. This is where the Electoral College is laid out. The amount of electoral votes each state receives is the sum of their senators (2 per state) and their representatives (based on population). This way each state gets equal representation and each state gets additional representation based on their population. The more populous states get more electoral votes (California getting the most at 55), but every state (and the District of Columbia) and its citizens are equally represented.

 

 

 

How each state dispenses its electoral votes is up to them, Currently there are two methods.

 

 

 

The most widely used method is: whichever candidate receives the majority vote for that state receives all the state's electoral votes, so when Kerry received 54% of the vote in California to Bush's 45%, Kerry won the state's votes and received all 55 Electoral votes.

 

 

 

Maine and Nebraska are the only 2 states currently that use a proportionate system of dividing its votes. With this method, a candidate will receive 1 electoral vote for each Congressional district it wins and the candidate that wins the most votes overall for that state would receive the additional 2 votes.

 

 

 

If we were to use the proportionate method on California, Kerry, who won in 31 of the 53 districts would have received 33 Electoral votes from California (31 for the districts and 2 for winning the state, overall) and Bush would have received 22 Electoral votes.

 

 

 

Personally, I would like to see the proprtionate system used everywhere, as it allows for more equal representation and would prevent a candidate from winning the election merely by sweeping the 11 largest states.

Oh my word! This is a thread WITHOUT religion in it! Praise the...uh...smeg! :D

 

 

 

In all seriousness, this is a good read, keep it up guys.

did you say abolition of the Electoral College??!?!?!!?1

 

 

 

THANK GOD!! \ =D>

I strongly disagree that the Electoral College should be abolished. Doing so would alienate all of the smaller states and grant all of the power to the larger states. The Electoral College was designed so that every state has equal representation, so that is is impossible for only the largest states to decide the fate of the election. In other words, this system was designed so that it is possible for an election to be won without gaining the popular vote.

 

 

 

You mean exactly like the status quo, where Vermont gets two electoral votes and California gets 50? And why is being able to win an election where you don't win the popular vote a good thing?

 

 

 

In a purely democratic system, more loosely populated states would have no importance, so why even consider them? They dont matter. Who cares about a barren patch of land that has only 500,000 people? We don't need their vote...

 

 

 

1. Again, these states are underrepresented anyway.

 

2. Politicians will continue to campaign in places like Wyoming and Kansas to ensure they get the rural vote.

 

3. Why does it matter whether politicians "care" about these places? Citizens of Vermont won't get to attend political rallies? So what?

 

 

 

Realistically, the Electoral College will never be abolished. It is one of the fundamental principals of the Constitution of the United States and though a few may attempt to abolish it, the process is very clear and, in this case, insurmountable, as it would alienate the very states that would be needed to pass the amendment.

 

 

 

Irrelevant to the debate over whether it should happen. If the people apply enough pressure to their state governments, we could reasonably pass such an amendment.

 

 

 

Besides, all of this stink has come about because Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000 and George W Bush won the election. Does anyone remember the electoral count? 271-266

 

 

 

Do you know what that means? Florida was not the reason Gore lost. Since 1968, Florida has only voted Democrat twice. In other words, in the last 10 elections, Republicans have won Florida 80% of the time.

 

 

 

Gore lost because he did not even win the votes of his home state of Tennessee, which voted for Clinton in both elections and elected Gore four times as a representative and twice as a senator.

 

 

 

Thats why he lost, he ignored the little guy. He ignored his home state, and you dont win an election if you lose your home state. The only president to ever do so was James Polk, when he won the 1844 election, but lost in Tennessee.

 

 

 

The issue isn't "why Gore lost." The issue is that a few hundred voters in Florida functionally overruled the 500,000-strong majority who voted for Gore. It's not a partisan thing. Bush got 3 million more votes nationwide in 04, but if just 50,000 more people in Ohio had voted for Kerry, it wouldn't have mattered. That doesn't sound particularly democratic to me.

You mean exactly like the status quo, where Vermont gets two electoral votes and California gets 50? And why is being able to win an election where you don't win the popular vote a good thing?

 

 

 

Vermont gets 3 votes and California get 55 because Vermont has a population of 630,000 and California has a population of 36,000,000

 

 

 

1. Again, these states are underrepresented anyway.

 

 

 

The yare not under-represented, they are equally represented, based on their population.

 

 

 

Irrelevant to the debate over whether it should happen. If the people apply enough pressure to their state governments, we could reasonably pass such an amendment.

 

 

 

It is not irrelevent, it will never happen because it should never happen. The United States is a republic, not a democracy. The people that come from the rural areas of the country would never pressure their state governments to support such an amendment, because fundamentally, culturally, morally and politically, people that live in rural areas tend to be far different than people in urban areas. Those people would certainly not support a system where only the urban areas are needed to decide the future of their country.

 

 

 

The issue isn't "why Gore lost." The issue is that a few hundred voters in Florida functionally overruled the 500,000-strong majority who voted for Gore. It's not a partisan thing. Bush got 3 million more votes nationwide in 04, but if just 50,000 more people in Ohio had voted for Kerry, it wouldn't have mattered. That doesn't sound particularly democratic to me.

 

 

 

This is, once again, where you seem to have no understanding of the United States government. So, once again The Unites States of America is not a democracy. It has never been a democracy and it never should be a democracy. The popular vote means absoutely nothing and has no bearing whatsoever on the election process.

 

 

 

The process is very simply.

 

 

 

Each state's citizens elects its own state government to govern and legislate.

 

 

 

Each state's citizens elects its representatives to represent it in Congress.

 

 

 

Each state's citizens elects its president. The states get a certain amount of votes, based on their population, to vote for the candidate that state has voted to be president. With the exception of Maine and Nebraska, the candidate that each state elects as president gets all of that states votes.

 

 

 

Abolishing the Electoral College would seriously compromise the sovereignty of the states in their ability to elect a president. Since the United States is a federal republic, the states maintain all political sovereignty that they do not yield to the federation. The ability of the state to decide, as a state, who it elects as president is is one of the fundamental principals of the state's sovereignty. Taking away that ability would seriously compromise our entire system of government.

The founding fathers never wanted a democracy. They established the college as a way for the people to have a say in the government, while keeping popular vote out of the picture. Basically, to prevent a King George or Adolf Hitler from getting in the Executive.

 

 

 

No offense, but the average American is too dumb to make such an important choice. Therefore, we elect people to the college to make the decision for us.

 

Vermont gets 3 votes and California get 55 because Vermont has a population of 630,000 and California has a population of 36,000,000

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

The yare not under-represented, they are equally represented, based on their population.

 

 

 

Oh, I see. So if we give every person in Vermont one vote, they're under-represented. But if we give entire states quasi-proportional votes based on their population, then those people are fairly represented. I don't see how these scenarios differ save that the popular vote is more exact in its math.

 

 

 

It is not irrelevent, it will never happen because it should never happen.

 

 

 

This is not an argument.

 

 

 

The United States is a republic, not a democracy. The people that come from the rural areas of the country would never pressure their state governments to support such an amendment, because fundamentally, culturally, morally and politically, people that live in rural areas tend to be far different than people in urban areas. Those people would certainly not support a system where only the urban areas are needed to decide the future of their country.

 

 

 

21% of the country lives in rural areas. Politicians will continue to target that demographic regardless of whether the electoral college is around.

 

 

 

We're not a democracy, etc. etc.

 

 

 

Listen. I know how our government works. Just because I implied that "democracy" was a good thing doesn't mean I don't know we're a republic. I know what the electoral college is, I know how we have historically elected our presidents. None of these are reasons why we should choose ALL republican institutions over democratic ones.

 

 

 

For a hundred and fifty years, states elected their senators via their state legislatures. In 1911, we passed the 17th amendment, and that changed. We realized the status quo system was arbitrary and bearucratic, and now we're probably better off for it.

 

 

 

Abolishing the Electoral College would seriously compromise the sovereignty of the states in their ability to elect a president. Since the United States is a federal republic, the states maintain all political sovereignty that they do not yield to the federation. The ability of the state to decide, as a state, who it elects as president is is one of the fundamental principals of the state's sovereignty. Taking away that ability would seriously compromise our entire system of government.

 

 

 

..You actually think that states have the "sovereign right" to vote for whomever they want? States have the right to decide the president in the same way that Iraqis had the right to free elections in the Hussein era. Federalism is dead. If you're really worried about increasing states' rights, become a lawyer and challenge Lopez, don't worry about preserving "rights" that don't really exist anyway.

No offense, but the average American is too dumb to make such an important choice. Therefore, we elect people to the college to make the decision for us.

 

 

 

That would all be well and good, as long they actually made those decisions for us. Instead, they just vote for whomever wins the most votes in their particular state.

 

 

 

(And, yes, I know that some states split their electoral votes. The same idea still applies.)

No offense, but the average American is too dumb to make such an important choice. Therefore, we elect people to the college to make the decision for us.

 

 

 

That would all be well and good, as long they actually made those decisions for us. Instead, they just vote for whomever wins the most votes in their particular state.

 

 

 

(And, yes, I know that some states split their electoral votes. The same idea still applies.)

 

 

 

And in a sense, that's still the people's say in government.

we from the great state of Tenn. dont really like al gore...

 

 

 

when he was vp he would come to nashville during rush hour and tie up all the trafic...he was basically an a hole once he became vp.

..You actually think that states have the "sovereign right" to vote for whomever they want? States have the right to decide the president in the same way that Iraqis had the right to free elections in the Hussein era. Federalism is dead. If you're really worried about increasing states' rights, become a lawyer and challenge Lopez, don't worry about preserving "rights" that don't really exist anyway.

 

 

 

/sigh

 

 

 

If we are going to get into a bunch of conspiracy theory BS, then i'm out of this conversation. You conspiracy theroists are all a bunch of nut-jobs that need to get sent to your own little island where you can theorize until the end of time about how you got there.

we from the great state of Tenn. dont really like al gore...

 

 

 

when he was vp he would come to nashville during rush hour and tie up all the trafic...he was basically an a hole once he became vp.

 

 

 

when bush came to new york for I think it was a republican convention, he caused too much trouble as well. There were also helicopters flying around the city.