What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Time to do away with the Electoral College (1 Viewer)

Time to do away with the Electoral College and use Popular Vote

  • Yes

    Votes: 58 32.4%
  • No

    Votes: 115 64.2%
  • I like the Roethlisberger Panty photo

    Votes: 6 3.4%

  • Total voters
    179

SHIZNITTTT

Footballguy
Former vice president Al Gore is calling for an end to the Electoral College — the system that cost him the presidency in 2000.

Gore said that many voters who live outside the dozen or so battleground states are cheated by the system that allocates delegates from the state level on a winner-take-all basis. He called for presidential elections to be determined by the popular vote.

“I’ve seen how these states are written off and ignored, and people are effectively disenfranchised in the presidential race. And I really do now think it is time to change that,” Gore said on Current TV, an independent cable network that he co-founded.

A dozen states are generally considered electoral battlegrounds where the 2012 election will be decided. They include Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

The Republican platform approved this week specifically opposes any change to the Electoral College process, constitutional or otherwise.

“We oppose the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact or any other scheme to abolish or distort the procedures of the Electoral College,” the platform reads. “We recognize that an unconstitutional effort to impose “national popular vote” would be a mortal threat to our federal system and a guarantee of corruption as every ballot box in every state would become a chance to steal the presidency.”

Gore said he supported the Electoral College even after the 2000 election, in which he won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College vote by 271-266 to George W. Bush. He has since had a change of heart.

“The logic is it knits the country together and prevents regional conflicts and goes back through our history with some legitimate concerns,” he said.

One proposal to change the system is through a constitutional amendment, which has been suggested numerous times but never gained traction. In the House, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) sponsored legislation that would provide for direct election of the president. It has attracted 29 Democratic co-sponsors but hasn’t made it out of committee.

Gore, on the other hand, said there is another route to take.

“It is always tough to amend the Constitution and risky to do so, but there is a very interesting movement under way that takes it state by state that may really have a chance of succeeding,” he said.

He appeared to be alluding to a system in which multiple states with a majority of electors could individually decide to allocate their votes to the winner of the popular vote, essentially bypassing the Electoral College.

The Electoral College is made up of 538 electors. A majority, or 270, of those electors are needed to become president.

Nine states have already enacted laws to allocate their electors to the winner of the popular vote, according to National Popular Vote, an organization that promotes the cause. They would only take effect after the bill passed enough states to hit the 270 threshold.

Former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who also appeared on the Current TV program, said he considered the proposal when he was governor. He said even if states took individual action, the compact could require a vote from Congress.

“The constitutional issue is would this be a interstate compact that would require congressional approval,” he said.

I have always thought that the electoral college's time has long been past. Small states get the shaft anyway, so why not let each vote count?

 
Isn't there a middle ground here that would work? Say, keep the total of electoral votes by state the same, but don't make each state winner take all? Give each candidate a proportional share of votes to their vote percentage in that state?

I know the math makes it dicey sometimes (ie how to split Rhode Island's 4 votes if the election is 58-42?), but I see the value in the electoral college as a whole and wouldn't want to see it completely abolished. Without it, wouldn't small states/sparsely populated areas get even more of a shaft than they do now?

 
Isn't there a middle ground here that would work? Say, keep the total of electoral votes by state the same, but don't make each state winner take all? Give each candidate a proportional share of votes to their vote percentage in that state?

I know the math makes it dicey sometimes (ie how to split Rhode Island's 4 votes if the election is 58-42?), but I see the value in the electoral college as a whole and wouldn't want to see it completely abolished. Without it, wouldn't small states/sparsely populated areas get even more of a shaft than they do now?
IF the electoral college cannot be abolished, then I would be for the next best thing and that is the splitting of electoral votes. It is silly to watch a candidate lose a state by thousands of votes and not get any representation in the way of electoral votes.
 
Isn't there a middle ground here that would work? Say, keep the total of electoral votes by state the same, but don't make each state winner take all? Give each candidate a proportional share of votes to their vote percentage in that state?

I know the math makes it dicey sometimes (ie how to split Rhode Island's 4 votes if the election is 58-42?), but I see the value in the electoral college as a whole and wouldn't want to see it completely abolished. Without it, wouldn't small states/sparsely populated areas get even more of a shaft than they do now?
IF the electoral college cannot be abolished, then I would be for the next best thing and that is the splitting of electoral votes. It is silly to watch a candidate lose a state by thousands of votes and not get any representation in the way of electoral votes.
You mean like 49% of the country gets disenfranchised when the other candidate gets 50%?

 
'Matthias said:
Isn't there a middle ground here that would work? Say, keep the total of electoral votes by state the same, but don't make each state winner take all? Give each candidate a proportional share of votes to their vote percentage in that state?

I know the math makes it dicey sometimes (ie how to split Rhode Island's 4 votes if the election is 58-42?), but I see the value in the electoral college as a whole and wouldn't want to see it completely abolished. Without it, wouldn't small states/sparsely populated areas get even more of a shaft than they do now?
IF the electoral college cannot be abolished, then I would be for the next best thing and that is the splitting of electoral votes. It is silly to watch a candidate lose a state by thousands of votes and not get any representation in the way of electoral votes.
You mean like 49% of the country gets disenfranchised when the other candidate gets 50%?
You prefer a system which disenfranchises 50% of the country when the other guy gets 49%?
"Democracy is the system of government that says the people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." Mencken.

 
Isn't there a middle ground here that would work? Say, keep the total of electoral votes by state the same, but don't make each state winner take all? Give each candidate a proportional share of votes to their vote percentage in that state?

I know the math makes it dicey sometimes (ie how to split Rhode Island's 4 votes if the election is 58-42?), but I see the value in the electoral college as a whole and wouldn't want to see it completely abolished. Without it, wouldn't small states/sparsely populated areas get even more of a shaft than they do now?
IF the electoral college cannot be abolished, then I would be for the next best thing and that is the splitting of electoral votes. It is silly to watch a candidate lose a state by thousands of votes and not get any representation in the way of electoral votes.
You mean like 49% of the country gets disenfranchised when the other candidate gets 50%?
You make my point for me. 40 percent of people eligible to vote don't! I would say they feel like I do that their vote doesn't matter. I like in Oklahoma and the RNC has this state in the bag. I will still go to the polls and vote. Maybe someday my vote will tip the balance? But, many people will not vote when they think their vote isn't going to matter. I guess the same could be said for a Republican or Independent in a state where it will go for DNC. "One person One Vote" seems to me that is what everyone was taught growing up that everyone matters. But, under the electoral college it couldn't be further from the truth.

 
Where's the option of allowing only those with doctorates in political science to vote?

 
Isn't there a middle ground here that would work? Say, keep the total of electoral votes by state the same, but don't make each state winner take all? Give each candidate a proportional share of votes to their vote percentage in that state?

I know the math makes it dicey sometimes (ie how to split Rhode Island's 4 votes if the election is 58-42?), but I see the value in the electoral college as a whole and wouldn't want to see it completely abolished. Without it, wouldn't small states/sparsely populated areas get even more of a shaft than they do now?
IF the electoral college cannot be abolished, then I would be for the next best thing and that is the splitting of electoral votes. It is silly to watch a candidate lose a state by thousands of votes and not get any representation in the way of electoral votes.
You mean like 49% of the country gets disenfranchised when the other candidate gets 50%?
You make my point for me. 40 percent of people eligible to vote don't! I would say they feel like I do that their vote doesn't matter. I like in Oklahoma and the RNC has this state in the bag. I will still go to the polls and vote. Maybe someday my vote will tip the balance? But, many people will not vote when they think their vote isn't going to matter. I guess the same could be said for a Republican or Independent in a state where it will go for DNC. "One person One Vote" seems to me that is what everyone was taught growing up that everyone matters. But, under the electoral college it couldn't be further from the truth.
interesting point. i don't know if there's consistent data to back that up. if your point was true, you'd expect much higher turnout in the battleground states and I'm not seeing that.
 
Who cares what state we are in we are all Americans if more of us want one guy to win why the hell shouldn't he?

 
Horrible idea and a massive deviation away from what our Founding Fathers envisioned.
Do you think they envisioned what New York City or the state of California would look like?
Had they, they'd probably have given even more power to the smaller states.
Why?
Because the system was set up to protect small states interests from being completely over run by large states. Do you really think that if they envisioned a "really really really large state", they'd just change their mind?
 
Horrible idea and a massive deviation away from what our Founding Fathers envisioned.
Do you think they envisioned what New York City or the state of California would look like?
Had they, they'd probably have given even more power to the smaller states.
Why?
Because the system was set up to protect small states interests from being completely over run by large states. Do you really think that if they envisioned a "really really really large state", they'd just change their mind?
Just curious why you thought they should give them more power instead of just equal power.
 
Horrible idea and a massive deviation away from what our Founding Fathers envisioned.
Do you think they envisioned what New York City or the state of California would look like?
Had they, they'd probably have given even more power to the smaller states.
Why?
Because the system was set up to protect small states interests from being completely over run by large states. Do you really think that if they envisioned a "really really really large state", they'd just change their mind?
Just curious why you thought they should give them more power instead of just equal power.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that they'd give small states more power than large states, just that they would have given them more power in relation to large states than they have now.
 
Keep it the way it is. Maybe someday South Dakota might actually be a swing state and people will remember it's one of the 50 states.

 
While I agree with Al, he might not be the best guy to popularize the argument. Kind of like Susan Lucci proposing a new way to pick the Daytime Emmys.
:goodposting: just glad some, including Gore are finally joining the 90's when others like myself started asking... why the f are we still deciding our president based off rules that were written before TV? :mellow:
 
While I agree with Al, he might not be the best guy to popularize the argument. Kind of like Susan Lucci proposing a new way to pick the Daytime Emmys.
:goodposting: just glad some, including Gore are finally joining the 90's when others like myself started asking... why the f are we still deciding our president based off rules that were written before TV? :mellow:
Our country is governed by laws formed before tv. Scrap it all?
 
Horrible idea and a massive deviation away from what our Founding Fathers envisioned.
Do you think they envisioned what New York City or the state of California would look like?
No, but they set the system up such that each State would gather to choose a new president. What we have now is exactly what was envisioned. This was part of the division of powers, the checks and balances, that has shaped this country. Abolishing the college would turn this country further from a republic to a centralized state - and that would be disastrous. We've already swung too far as it is.
 
While I agree with Al, he might not be the best guy to popularize the argument. Kind of like Susan Lucci proposing a new way to pick the Daytime Emmys.
:goodposting: just glad some, including Gore are finally joining the 90's when others like myself started asking... why the f are we still deciding our president based off rules that were written before TV? :mellow:
Can we scrap the 2nd amendment too?
 
While I agree with Al, he might not be the best guy to popularize the argument. Kind of like Susan Lucci proposing a new way to pick the Daytime Emmys.
:goodposting: just glad some, including Gore are finally joining the 90's when others like myself started asking... why the f are we still deciding our president based off rules that were written before TV? :mellow:
Can we scrap the 2nd amendment too?
Not all of it. Maybe 2/5ths of it. I'd be fine with that.
 
While I agree with Al, he might not be the best guy to popularize the argument. Kind of like Susan Lucci proposing a new way to pick the Daytime Emmys.
:goodposting: just glad some, including Gore are finally joining the 90's when others like myself started asking... why the f are we still deciding our president based off rules that were written before TV? :mellow:
Can we scrap the 2nd amendment too?
Not all of it. Maybe 2/5ths of it. I'd be fine with that.
I'd like it overhauled but the precedent is what I'm worried about. Just because we have one ridiculous amendment that doesn't apply in 2012 it doesn't mean the others fit that description.
 
Horrible idea and a massive deviation away from what our Founding Fathers envisioned.
Do you think they envisioned what New York City or the state of California would look like?
No, but they set the system up such that each State would gather to choose a new president. What we have now is exactly what was envisioned. This was part of the division of powers, the checks and balances, that has shaped this country. Abolishing the college would turn this country further from a republic to a centralized state - and that would be disastrous. We've already swung too far as it is.
It shouldn't matter at all as far as state's rights go. What I don't get is why a vote in South Dakota wields more clout than a vote in California. That seems to me to be illogical.
 
Horrible idea and a massive deviation away from what our Founding Fathers envisioned.
Do you think they envisioned what New York City or the state of California would look like?
No, but they set the system up such that each State would gather to choose a new president. What we have now is exactly what was envisioned. This was part of the division of powers, the checks and balances, that has shaped this country. Abolishing the college would turn this country further from a republic to a centralized state - and that would be disastrous. We've already swung too far as it is.
Excellent post. It's patently obvious that the reason Gore wants the change is because the Democrats would win the Presidency more often. The more populous states have the advantage of more electoral votes. That's enough of an advantage.
 
Horrible idea and a massive deviation away from what our Founding Fathers envisioned.
Do you think they envisioned what New York City or the state of California would look like?
No, but they set the system up such that each State would gather to choose a new president. What we have now is exactly what was envisioned. This was part of the division of powers, the checks and balances, that has shaped this country. Abolishing the college would turn this country further from a republic to a centralized state - and that would be disastrous. We've already swung too far as it is.
It shouldn't matter at all as far as state's rights go. What I don't get is why a vote in South Dakota wields more clout than a vote in California. That seems to me to be illogical.
Using Mississippi as an example, if I'm a Republican, my presidential vote is worthless; if I'm a Democrat, it's still worthless.

If I'm running a presidential campaign, nothing would annoy me more than to have to sell my argument to all of America.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
California, New York, and Texas pretty much dictate the platforms of the two major parties. I don't get the argument that they don't already have enough influence.

 
Horrible idea and a massive deviation away from what our Founding Fathers envisioned.
Do you think they envisioned what New York City or the state of California would look like?
No, but they set the system up such that each State would gather to choose a new president. What we have now is exactly what was envisioned. This was part of the division of powers, the checks and balances, that has shaped this country. Abolishing the college would turn this country further from a republic to a centralized state - and that would be disastrous. We've already swung too far as it is.
It shouldn't matter at all as far as state's rights go. What I don't get is why a vote in South Dakota wields more clout than a vote in California. That seems to me to be illogical.
Using Mississippi as an example, if I'm a Republican, my presidential vote is worthless; if I'm a Democrat, it's still worthless.

If I'm running a presidential campaign, nothing would annoy me more than to have to sell my argument to all of America.
Except they won't have to sell it to all of America. Just the population centers.
 
What a cluster-#### a national recount would be.
:goodposting: National popular vote would seem to require a federal voting system, which would not be popular.

As for the National Popular Vote initiative, there are reasons to be wary.

It would seem to require a federal voting system, which would not be popular.

Plus, what it the national popular vote is a virtual tie? It's not unpossible.

 
I keep hoping the Electoral College will get a bid for March Madness and every year they get the shaft. I say do away with them.

Seriously, while I'd like to submit a thoughtful, unbiased opinion on this, it makes a lot more sense to just trust what some wig-wearing dude in 1776 thought would be best for us here in 2012.

 
Except for three cases, two of which were over a hundred years ago, the candidate with the most popular votes has won. There's really no need for a change.

 
I think you'll hear more of this from the left although Gore is a very bad guy to be the spokesman for it...IMO the left game-plan is to get rid of the electoral college while eventually getting the illegals the right to vote...that combo would have a dramatic effect on Presidential elections...

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top