posted on November 8, 2000 07:55:30 AM new
Well, whichever way this election pans out...I am certainly grateful for the refresher course on the American Voting Process & the role of the Electoral College...Two weeks ago, I was tryin' desperately to remember how this all works...Now, I know way more about it then I actually wanted/needed!....
BUT, the question to you AWers.....IF the results indicate that one candidate wins the popular vote & the other the electoral, how would YOU like to see it resolved:
1) As the constitution dictates, electoral winner WINS
& review (with possible action) is done on the current need for the Electoral College
2) As the constitution dictates, electoral winner WINS
& the entire process remains the same
3) The process (popular vs electoral) is challenged/changed before a winner is decided
~ Rancher
Oh yeah, if GWB wins, does this mean that all Americans will be forced to mispronounce every other word out of their mouths???
[ edited by rancher24 on Nov 8, 2000 07:56 AM ]
posted on November 8, 2000 08:01:07 AM new
I think this election will make it possible to actually attempt the possibility of ammending the system...but if we voted on ammending to popular-over-electorial...would our vote be a popular or electorial counted vote?
posted on November 8, 2000 08:29:52 AM new
Am I correct in thinking the purpose of the Electoral College is to protect the interests of low-population states from political domination by the large urban centers?
If you look at the electoral map...it looks that it's working out that way. Bush won many more states, but Gore won the big population areas, and thus the popular vote.
posted on November 8, 2000 08:34:08 AM new
~ Rancher
"Oh yeah, if GWB wins, does this mean that all Americans will be forced to mispronounce every other word out of their mouths???"
Well yes Rancher it does....but let me explain why that's not a problem.
Because we'll be thinkin like good ole' boys. We'll all be doin the moral and right things. Women will be back in the kitchens where they belong. Real men will be callin the shots. It's the natchel order of things.
Don't think of it as a set back. Think of it as being re-born in 1950.
posted on November 8, 2000 08:34:23 AM new
The only reason for keeping the electoral system, that I have seen, is that it keeps local ballot box stuffing from being able to affect the whole country.
This was one of the pundits (sorry don't know his name)last night's premise anyway. If there is ballot tampering, the affects are localized.
I don't know that this is so, just an opinion I heard at about 3AM.
posted on November 8, 2000 09:12:22 AM new1) As the constitution dictates, electoral winner WINS & review (with possible action) is done on the current need for the Electoral College[/i]
2) As the constitution dictates, electoral winner WINS & the entire process remains the same 3) The process (popular vs electoral) is challenged/changed before a winner is decided
#3 is out of the question. It is never fair (or constitutional)to change the rules after the fact.
#1 is the correct course of action IMO
The entire electoral college scheme goes against our basic principle of one man/woman, one vote. It's time for a change.
[ edited by abingdoncomputers on Nov 8, 2000 09:14 AM ]
posted on November 8, 2000 09:18:16 AM new
Well according to the latest, it has actually come to this. Al Gore has received more of the popular vote than Dubya. CNN said he received more votes than Clinton did when he ran. And still it may swing to Dubya in the electoral count...in which case, the electoral college will be putting a President in D.C. the majority of people do not want there.
Can you BELIEVE this race????? My 8 and (almost) 10 year old kids are glued to CNN now, fascinated by this whole edge-of-your-chair process. We hung our heads in sadness when Dubya was announced the winner late last night and they woke up to the news that Florida had been taken away from him again for the time being... what a SHOW!
And rancher, I believe that if Dubya is elected, not only will we be required to mispronounce words, but we will also be encouraged to drink and drive, learn that superficial giggle that means 'I don't know and I'm stalling', and get a free 8-ball of cocaine on special occasions
posted on November 8, 2000 10:01:05 AM new
The original purpose of the electoral college was provide a more educated vote.
In the early years, when the US was just a handful of states up and down the East Coast, there was no realistic way for the candidates to reach out to all the voters to express their opinions on the various issues and most voters had no idea who the different candidates were. Due to the primative state of transportation at the time, campaigns as we know them now, were unrealistic. To prevent the voters from casting their votes for their "local" candidate due to lack of knowledge, the electorial college was established. This enabled the electors (about 70) to travel to the capital to hear the speaches of the candidates and have some basis for their vote.
IMO, this system as long since become obsolete, and an alternative solution should be explored.
And by the way, the actual Electoral College vote does not take place until December. The results being quoted in the press are based on the assumption that the electors will vote according to the popular vote results. Although this is customary, it is not required. If ever there was an election close enough for the electors to split their votes in December, rather than all voting with the popular vote, this would be the one. (I do doubt if it will happen, but you never know)
posted on November 8, 2000 10:12:48 AM new
> > Why did the chicken cross the road?
> >
> > VICE PRESIDENT GORE
> > I fight for the chickens and I am fighting for the
> > chickens right now. I will not give up on the
> > chickens crossing the road! I will fight for the
> > chickens and I will not disappoint them.
> >
> > GOVERNOR GEORGE W. BUSH
> > I don't believe we need to get the chickens across the
> > road. I say give the road to the chickens and let
> > them decide. The government needs to let go of
> > strangling the chickens so they can get across the
> > road.
> >
> > SENATOR LIEBERMAN
> > I believe that every chicken has the right to worship
> > their God in their own way. Crossing the road is a
> > spiritual journey and no chicken should be denied the
> > right to cross the road in their own way.
> >
> > SECRETARY CHENEY
> > Chickens are big-time because they have wings. They
> > could fly if they wanted to. Chickens don't want to
> > cross the road. They don't need help crossing the
> > road. In fact, I'm not interested in crossing the
> > road myself.
> >
> > RALPH NADER
> > Chickens are misled into believing there is a road by
> > the evil tiremakers. Chickens aren't ignorant, but our
> > society pays tiremakers to create the need for these
> > roads and then lures chickens into believing there
> > is an advantage to crossing them. Down with the
> > roads, up with chickens.
> >
> > PAT BUCHANAN
> > To steal a job from a decent, hardworking American.
> >
> > JERRY FALWELL
> > Because the chicken was gay! Isn't it obvious? Can't
> > you people see the plain truth in front of your face?
> > The chicken was going to the "other side." That's
> > what "they" call it - the "other side." Yes, my
> > friends, that chicken is gay. And, if you eat that
> > chicken, you will become gay too. I say we boycott
> > all chickens until we sort out this abomination that
> > the liberal media whitewashes with seemingly harmless
> > phrases like "the other side." That chicken should
> > not be free to cross the road. It's as plain and
> > simple as that.
> >
> > DR. SEUSS
> > Did the chicken cross the road?
> > Did he cross it with a toad?
> > Yes! The chicken crossed the road, but why it
> > crossed, I've not been told!
> >
> > ERNEST HEMINGWAY
> > To die. In the rain.
> >
> > MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.
> > I envision a world where all chickens will be free to
> > cross without having their motives called into
> > question.
> >
> > GRANDPA
> > In my day, we didn't ask why the chicken crossed the
> > road. Someone told us that the chicken crossed the
> > road, and that was good enough for us.
> >
> > ARISTOTLE
> > It is the nature of chickens to cross the road.
> >
> > KARL MARX
> > It was a historical inevitability.
> >
> > SADDAM HUSSEIN
> > This was an unprovoked act of rebellion and we were
> > quite justified in dropping nerve gas on it.
> >
> > CAPTAIN JAMES T. KIRK
> > To boldly go where no chicken has gone before.
> >
> > FOX MULDER
> > You saw it cross the road with your own eyes. How
> > many more chickens have to cross before you believe
> > it?
> >
> > FREUD
> > The fact that you are at all concerned that the
> > chicken crossed the road reveals your underlying
> > sexual insecurity and your desire to have sex with
> > your mother.
> >
> > BILL GATES
> > I have just released eChicken 2000, which will not
> > only cross roads, but will lay eggs, file your
> > important documents, and balance your checkbook
> > and Internet Explorer is an inextricable part of
> > eChicken.
> >
> > EINSTEIN
> > Did the chicken really cross the road, or did the road
> > move beneath the chicken?
> >
> > BILL CLINTON
> > I did not cross the road with THAT chicken. What do
> > you mean by "chicken"? Could you define "chicken"
> > please? It depends upon what "why" means.
> >
> > LOUIS FARRAKHAN
> > The road, you will see, represents the black man. The
> > chicken crossed the "black man" in order to trample
> > him and keep him down.
posted on November 8, 2000 10:25:39 AM newToke and Upinthehills - Exactly. If the popular vote were the criterion for election, candidates would have little reason to spend time campaigning in low-population states. The entire country's future could be decided by residents of NYC and LA - which areas, I'd suggest are hardly representative of their own states, let alone the national character as a whole. And election fraud in one state has less of a chance of tainting the entire country with the electoral college in place.
As it stands, even if a candidate won the "big 8" states - PA, CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, MI, and OH (total 228 electoral votes) - he still has to keep the "little guys" - everybody from ND to NH - in mind or he's just not going to win. Sounds wise to me.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Nov 8, 2000 10:28 AM ]
posted on November 8, 2000 10:51:08 AM new
Not only are the voters in Los Angeles not representative of the entire state, they do not even speak for everyone in Los Angeles. We have a huge problem trying to surmount the celebrity endorsements of those that take unfair advantage of their high profiles to influence uninformed voters. I wonder how many thought that Martin Sheen's endorsements were coming from the President of the United States. And then there was poor Cher, who apparently had no work whatsoever during the Reagon/Bush administrations.
posted on November 8, 2000 01:23:33 PM new
The Electoral vote will remain. States like to have a voice in the national elections and will be opposed to give that up. Each state has 2 senators, whether that state has 10,000,000 residents or 500,000 residents, yet that is never question... nor will it be.
posted on November 10, 2000 04:56:16 AM new
What is happening in this election is exactly why the Electoral Vote needs to be abolished. Those in support, say that it gives more power to the smaller states to allow them more influence in the outcome.
If you look at our current situation, this could not be farther from the truth. Late in the evening, the vote came in from New Mexico, but nobody cared because they only held 5 EC votes. The count was not final in Oregon, but nobody cared because they only hold 7 EC votes. The only voters that counted at that point were those in Florida. This means that the voters of New Mexico and Oregon might just as well stayed home. This is not the way things should be. I can't imagine the feeling of worthlessness that must be felt by the voters of those two states. "The votes are in from New Mexico, but well, they don't mean jack."
In an election this close, a state would have more voting power in the popular election than using the Electoral College system. Every state has enough voters to have decided this election based on the popular vote system.
As for the large cities or large states influencing the outcome of the election...
It should not matter where a person chooses to live or work. Each American is entitled to one vote. One equal vote. Not one powerful vote if you live in Florida or New York, and one watered down vote if you live in North Dakota, but one equal vote. A democrat living in a republican state, does not get an equal vote. Their vote is negated if they are in the minority party. This should not be.
Quote from US Today:
"As the election battle raged in Florida, results also were being questioned in New Mexico, where a partial recount was planned, and in Iowa, Oregon and Wisconsin, where officials were considering recounts of ballots that gave Gore razor-thin victories. Gore was leading Oregon by fewer than 2,000 votes. Nevertheless, those battles remained a sideshow because neither side could prevail without Florida's 25 electoral votes"
posted on November 10, 2000 06:22:55 AM new
The electoral college doesn't do any such thing as protect smaller states or create a balance preventing an overwhelming influence by highly populated areas.
All it does is condense the vote from states and carry that voted will of the people of each state to Washington. It's designed to enable representation of the people directly in Washington, and that's about it.
The actual wording is: "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may
be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector".
It creates a non-legislative branch and separate body of state representatives and nothing else for the purpose of electing presidents.
No state is given any more votes than it has in the congress, so it is possible that New York can outvote pipsqueak Arizona.
posted on November 10, 2000 06:46:59 AM new
You know, there is a workaround of sorts for those states who object to the electoral college system. Maine, for example, proportionally allocates its votes to the candidates. If there were such a strong objection to teh winner-take-all idea of electoral votes, each state could follow Maine's lead. But I think only one other has. Anybody have any ideas why?
But enough of that. Let's hypothetically throw out the Electoral College and propose another system. What do we put in its place - who wins? Whoever gets...
A majority (more than 50% of the vote)? If so, what happens when 3 candidates split the ticket and nobody gets 50%? (Or as in this case, where both candidates got 49%?)
A plurality (whoever gets the most votes in number, no matter what the percentage is)?
100% accuracy then becomes essential, since even one vote could conceivably change the outcome.
If most of us occasionally goof up balancing our checkbooks, How would we achieve perfection in a system where some 100 million votes must be accurately counted?
Aside from double-voted ballots, what would trigger a recount? How big, IOW, does the gap need to be between votes for candidate A and candidate B to ensure accuracy? One? Fifty? Five thousand?
What would happen to ballots rejected because of double-voting? Would we have to have a revote in whatever district in which double-voted ballots were found? How many times - until all the double ballots are eliminated? Who would be permitted to vote in round 2?
How would voters' knowledge of the already-tabulated results in other districts (and nationwide) change the results of a revote?
Is Monday-morning-quarterbacking acceptable in voting (consider the Nader voters, who now know their candidate won't get the requisite 5%)?
If screwup District A voters get to change their minds on round 2, why can't the voters in District B get a second try, now that they know how many votes are needed to elect a particular candidate?
Would the knowledge that a revote could take place actually encourage people to double-vote so that they can hedge their bets and save their "revote" for round 2?
What about candidates campaigning (or making any public statement at all) between vote 1 and vote 2?
posted on November 10, 2000 07:00:24 AM new
The reason most use the winner take all states stay that way is the same reason small states demanded the electoral college to begin with. No Presidential candidate would bother much with small states without the electoral college, and apportioning the electoral votes would diminish the impact of a state, and there by interest in the state.
posted on November 10, 2000 07:04:33 AM new
Right. The quiaint notion that there may be states which 'object' and seek 'workarounds' to the electoral process is absurd since the mechanism was established in the state's interests and is a powerful state's right.
posted on November 10, 2000 08:38:25 AM new
Although I understand, KRS, that the only answer that, as a woman (and particularly moi), I merit receiving is "because they don't," I had the "quaint" notion that there was probably a REASON why states haven't decided to apportion their electoral votes as Maine has (and, conversely, why Maine took this step).
Maybe you can enlighten me on something else. First you state that all the electoral system does is "condense the vote from states and carry that voted will of the people of each state to Washington. It's designed to enable representation of the people directly in Washington, and that's about it." You later state that "the mechanism was established in the state's interests and is a powerful state's right."
So...is it merely a method to "condense the vote from the states" - in which case, why would Maine go to the trouble of apportioning its electoral votes? Or is it a "powerful" tool? Or is it, as I suspect, both?
posted on November 10, 2000 09:17:19 AM new
It just doesn't seem right that the electoral college system may put Bush in the White House by a margin of less than 400 individual votes, even though Gore leads the popular vote by more than 200,000.
posted on November 10, 2000 09:30:22 AM new
Quilt,
If you've been to the state of Maine, the generalized contrariness of the people there would give you your answer, most likely, but they may have more than that as a reason for exercizing their constitutional perogative in setting up the electoral representation as they chose. I doubt that there's much mystery involved and a simple search of the constitution of the state of Maine is within your capabilities, I hope.
posted on November 10, 2000 09:49:37 AM newIt just doesn't seem right that the electoral college system may put Bush in the White House by a margin of less than 400 individual votes, even though Gore leads the popular vote by more than 200,000.
That was GREAT! I had to send that out to all my friends!