An interesting debate on Facebook...thought you people might enjoy it.

http://www.facebook.com/politics/debate.php?id=27944880272

12/19/2007 3:45:53 PM

Theres no reason in today's society that a person should lose the presidency for getting the most votes.

Gore won by 500,000 in 2000 and look what we have now. Also, if just 60,000 votes would have shifted in 2004, Kerry would have won even though Bush won the popular vote by 3 million.

The electoral college is anti democratic and deserves to be done away with.

12/19/2007 3:56:30 PM

this thread gets made about once every 3 months

12/19/2007 4:08:55 PM

^what he said.

also: the big states are starting to push towards a popular vote. also there are the states that split their electoral votes up based on the popular vote in their state. i think an electoral vote split is the most likely course that many states might take.

12/19/2007 4:12:13 PM

get rid of it

12/19/2007 4:16:53 PM

keep it

12/19/2007 4:30:52 PM

keep rid of it

12/19/2007 4:32:15 PM

fuck FACEBOOK. btw: ibtl.

12/19/2007 4:41:57 PM

Do away with the 12th amendment instead.

12/19/2007 5:19:12 PM

Yeah, that way the populations of five or six metropolitan areas can decide every presidential campaign and candidates can completely ignore all but about five states.

sounds like a great plan

[Edited on December 19, 2007 at 10:09 PM. Reason : r]

12/19/2007 9:42:36 PM

the electoral college is the political verison of the BCS Div 1A football.

12/19/2007 9:59:42 PM

except not really

12/19/2007 10:15:07 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, that way the populations of five or six metropolitan areas can decide every presidential campaign and candidates can completely ignore all but about five states."

kind of like they do now? Yeah, great - Wyoming and North Dakota are technically over-represented by the Electoral College, meaning the candidates should proportionally pay more attention to them. but guess what - they don't. the numbers are too small to worry about, and the votes rarely change anyway

the largest electoral vote-getter states are more or less proportionally represented by their populations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population
California - 12% by population, 10.2% electoral vote
Texas - 7.7% population, 6.3% electoral
New York - 6.4% population, 5.8% electoral
Florida - 6% population, 5% electoral

So the top states get 27.3% by electoral vote but will get 32.1% of the popular vote. Do you think that's going to make that much of a difference in how the campaigns spend their money?

If you don't want to go to overall popular vote, I think it's perfectly reasonable to have the electoral split within the states, so the idea that small states still get a proportionally larger voice is still true, but it's up to that state to determine how their proportionally larger voice gets split.

12/19/2007 10:53:30 PM

Wasn't the electoral college put into place to protect the system from uninformed/uneducated voters?

Not that it really matters. It hasn't stopped people completely unfit for the job from getting in anyway.

12/19/2007 10:56:38 PM

all the candidates give a shit about are the swing states now anyways

how would it be worse if the focus is on the metro areas?

[Edited on December 19, 2007 at 11:02 PM. Reason : ]

12/19/2007 10:57:48 PM

i think the bigger problem is the primary system honestly. a rotating primary schedule would do far more good than changing the electoral college. as it is: iowa, new hampshire and a couple of other wholly unrepresentative states decide who our parties' nominees will be.

12/19/2007 11:27:38 PM

Politicians would love to get rid of the electoral college. They could then save money by just concentrating on the major urban areas. The outlying areas wouldn't really matter any longer.

I lthink Sarijoul has an interesting idea. Perhaps hold a random drawing each presidential cycle for the first three primary states.

12/19/2007 11:37:08 PM

Quote :

"Theres no reason in today's society that a person should lose the presidency for getting the most votes."

i was not aware that the electoral college made it so that the winner of the popular vote couldn't win the presidency

Quote :

"Gore won by 500,000 in 2000 and look what we have now. Also, if just 60,000 votes would have shifted in 2004, Kerry would have won even though Bush won the popular vote by 3 million."

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!! MY CANDIDATE DIDN'T WIN!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!! CLEARLY THE SYSTEM DOESN'T WORK CAUSE MY CANDIDATE DIDN'T WIN!! WAAAAAAAAAAA!

Dude, grow the fuck up! Get over the fact that Gore LOST the 2000 election. That bush is a shitty president isn't an indictment of the electoral college. It's an indictment of the 2-party process that gave us a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich for President.

Quote :

" The electoral college is anti democratic and deserves to be done away with. "

Sure is a shame that we're NOT A DEMOCRACY. I mean really, do you think that you know better than the founding fathers? The electoral college is based primarily on an amazing compromise, for crying out loud! And somehow it's awful? The founding fathers knew that a direct election for the President was fraught with problems, so they made a compromise that gave the larger states slightly less power in the Presidential election while granting them amazingly more power in the legislature. One might have a point if the President were the only one making the decisions, but that simply isn't the case. Learn some fucking history and get some perspective

Quote :

"Wasn't the electoral college put into place to protect the system from uninformed/uneducated voters?"

no. The electoral college was put in place the address the problem inherent in holding a popular election across large and disparate regions.

Quote :

" all the candidates give a shit about are the swing states now anyways how would it be worse if the focus is on the metro areas? "

How would it be worse? Imagine a recount across the entire country. Think that would be easy? Or, imagine how much candidates would stand to gain by stuffing the ballot box in just one state, and imagine how easy that would be to do as opposed to having to stuff several ballot states' ballot boxes. Or, imagine that regions such as big cities inherently have different ideas and concerns than regions like rural areas. To give the rural areas effectively NO VOICE is ridiculous, especially when you consider that the big areas already have a huge voice in another branch of the government.

[Edited on December 20, 2007 at 6:58 AM. Reason : ]

12/20/2007 6:51:44 AM

500,000 votes you say?

12/20/2007 8:47:01 AM

Quote :

"The electoral college is anti democratic and deserves to be done away with"

wrong

first off, what is a "democratic election" anyway? simple majority rule? is that fair? no.

more importantly however, it is necessary because of states' rights

each little podunk state is as sovereign as the next and deserves an equal vote (duh, like the senate)

but then, the people themselves need the more equitable representation of a popular vote (duh, like the house)

it's a balance, people. a brilliant balance. (USA #1)

Quote :

"Yeah, that way the populations of five or six metropolitan areas can decide every presidential campaign and candidates can completely ignore all but about five states. sounds like a great plan "

exactly

why should NY, LA, and a few other cities (that together comprise WELL over half the total population,)

deny the votes of EVERY SINGLE OTHER CITIZEN IN THE COUNTRY?

seriously, anyone who supports the popular vote is about as stupid and unamerican as one can get

get a fucking clue, people!

Quote :

"Wasn't the electoral college put into place to protect the system from uninformed/uneducated voters?"

not entirely, there were other reasons too

but you make an interesting point

I've always thought (although it will likely never happen,) that at each polling place,

voters should have to answer some randomly selected questions* about US history and our constitutional system

the percent of questions answered correctly is the same percent of their vote that gets counted

uninformed/uneducated electorate problem solved (?)

*(the list of questions would, of course, have to undergo serious and open scrutiny by teachers and historians on all sides)

Quote :

"i think the bigger problem is the primary system honestly. a rotating primary schedule would do far more good than changing the electoral college"

rotating primary? yes

the current primary voting system is half of the problem

a pureto rican caller to a radio show recently asked a guest why america does this

and the response was simply, "Iowa takes their responsibility seriously....the system works fine...."

(too bad that doesn't even address the question!! iow, there is no good answer to why iowa is first)

Quote :

"bush is a shitty president isn't an indictment of the electoral college. It's an indictment of the 2-party process that gave us a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich for President."

ding ding ding!

we haaaaaaave a winner!

most of the problem is obviously the corrupt and poisonous two-party election process

note: I am distinguishing this from the 2-party congress, which we should keep

iow, all political parties and independents should have an EQUAL chance at running for office

but, once in office, they should pick which side of the aisle they want or something

that way, we could keep most of the current functionality of congress, and only change minor details

(I'd like a more eloquent explanation of what I've vaguely described here, but I think it could very easily work)




[Edited on December 20, 2007 at 9:37 AM. Reason : ]

12/20/2007 9:08:42 AM

Quote :

"a pureto rican caller to a radio show recently asked a guest why america does this"

someone listens to diane rehm.

[Edited on December 20, 2007 at 9:50 AM. Reason : .]

12/20/2007 9:49:21 AM

12/20/2007 10:37:06 AM

We should do way with representative democracy instead.

12/20/2007 10:45:35 AM

The electoral college was designed in the 1700's for a variety of reasons but mostly due to the logistic problems of conducting a reliable popular vote for president as well as illiteracy of many Americans who would not fully understand what they were voting for. Obviously for the most part this is not a problem anymore (at least the logistics; not sure about the political candidate competency). At this point the electoral college is nothing more then an archaic system whose sole purpose it to protect the status quo of the hacked out 2 party system

12/20/2007 10:48:21 AM

actually a lot of it was about giving more say to farming/low population states. and that's still what the debate is about.

12/20/2007 11:14:09 AM

farming states like Florida right?

It's pretty bullshit the candidates have to edit their platforms and dedicate their campaigns to certain "swing" states b.c of the electoral college. No point in coming to NC when all the rednecks/christians rockout the GOP vote and little point in going to somewhere like NY where all the liberals vote democrat

12/20/2007 11:35:08 AM

Quote :

"why should NY, LA, and a few other cities (that together comprise WELL over half the total population,) deny the votes of EVERY SINGLE OTHER CITIZEN IN THE COUNTRY?"

no one would be denied a vote for president by getting rid of the electoral college. it would make every single person's vote equal as it should be. are you saying your 1 vote should be worth more than my 1 vote just b/c i happen to live in a big city?

[Edited on December 20, 2007 at 11:49 AM. Reason : []

12/20/2007 11:47:31 AM

are you that dumb?

have you ever watched "green acres"?

[big] city folk are 100% different than rural folk

as are their values, their priorities, their culture, everything

they are as different from (normal, that's right, normal) people as you can get

they might as well be a different country

12/20/2007 12:01:06 PM

which party wants it more?

12/20/2007 12:04:01 PM

Quote :

"I mean really, do you think that you know better than the founding fathers? The electoral college is based primarily on an amazing compromise, for crying out loud! And somehow it's awful? The founding fathers knew that a direct election for the President was fraught with problem"

well the founding fathers also thought slavery was "ok" and counted black people as 3/5 of a person when it came to census time.

I don't buy the states rights argument since the federal gov't thanks to the income tax has sapped much of the authority and power from the individual states.

Nothing else the electoral college voids the minority (as in democrat in a red state and vice-versa) from having any power within their state. I am sure the republicans in California do not like the electoral college. Ignorant people can easily be swayed in election time which allows candidates to play off the commoner and silence opposition voters in states that have a one color tendency.

12/20/2007 12:08:49 PM

The electoral college was in art designed as a protection of state rights and interests. Note that the constitution specifically states that the state legislatures have the authority to determine how their electors are chosen, and up to a certain point in history, there was no such thing as the "popular vote" because the legislatures were the ones that elected the president. Now I'm not suggesting we go back to the legislatures picking the president, as at this point in history, the federal government has a more direct impact on the people's rights, but simply shifting to a popular vote system just shifts the problem from "swing states" to major population centers. It's still the same problem, just with different interests being pandered.

Quote :

"no one would be denied a vote for president by getting rid of the electoral college. it would make every single person's vote equal as it should be. are you saying your 1 vote should be worth more than my 1 vote just b/c i happen to live in a big city?"

This is a serious misunderstanding of our winner take all system. Under such a system, the only people's votes who count are the people who voted for the winner. Whether this is accomplished via an electoral college or a popular vote the end result is the same, if you didn't vote for the winner, you might as well have voted for a monkey.

I was serious when I said to repeal the 12th amendment. I think the founding fathers knew very well what they were doing when they made it so that the person who receives the second most votes became vice president. It's all about balance of power.

12/20/2007 12:20:38 PM

Quote :

"well the founding fathers also thought slavery was "ok"

many of them didn't think that

and even they realized that a ban on slavery, at that time, would have destroyed the economy, and the nation

Quote :

"I don't buy the states rights argument since the federal gov't thanks to the income tax has sapped much of the authority and power from the individual states."

iow, it's ok that the system is broken, because the system is broken (dumb)

Quote :

"voids the minority... from having any power within their state."

and the popular vote voids the RURAL minority from having any power within the country

iow

Quote :

"but simply shifting to a popular vote system just shifts the problem from "swing states" to major population centers. It's still the same problem, just with different interests being pandered."

12/20/2007 12:25:41 PM

One benefit of getting rid of the electoral college is that The Long Tail becomes applicable to politics, which gives third party candidates a realistic shot.

12/20/2007 12:54:31 PM

No.

12/20/2007 1:07:14 PM

^^^ Let me guess you like the BCS system also to pick the College National Football Champion also?

Quote :

"the popular vote voids the RURAL minority from having any power within the country"

Why should Jimmy Jon corn farmer's vote in Iowa count exponentially more then my vote in NC

[Edited on December 20, 2007 at 1:12 PM. Reason : a]

12/20/2007 1:11:03 PM

Quote :

"are you that dumb? have you ever watched "green acres"? [big] city folk are 100% different than rural folk as are their values, their priorities, their culture, everything they are as different from (normal, that's right, normal) people as you can get they might as well be a different country "

ah, my bad. didn't realize you were just a troll.

12/20/2007 1:12:38 PM

Quote :

"Why should Jimmy Jon corn farmer's vote in Iowa count exponentially more then my vote in NC"

what are you talking about?

you yourself said that the "electoral college voids the minority (as in democrat in a red state and vice-versa) from having any power within their state"

what that means is that when you are in that minority (dem in nc, rep in ny, etc.) your vote is voided

it doesn't matter

what I, and others (1337 b4k4) are pointing out is that in a national popular vote, the very same thing happens

just to different minority groups


in the same way that a "red state" denies a meaningful vote to it's democratic minorities

and in same the way that a "blue state" denies a meaningful vote to it's republican minorities,

a popular vote denies a meaningful vote to the entire nations' non-metropolitan minorities

(because soooooo much of the nations population is found in metropolitan areas, duh)

and it just so happens that the distinction of metropolitan vs. non-metropolitan

again, for what should be obvious reasons

very, very closely overlaps the distinction of democratic vs. republican

why?

people who live in metropolises have VERY different life experiences than those living a more rural or small town life

imagine someone living somewhere where 10,000 other people lived within a few hundred feet

ya see why they would tend to vote against guns and residential livestock and for public busing taxes?

now imaging someone whose closest neighbor is a few hundred feet away or living in a small town

ya see how they would tend to vote the opposite?

if you don't see the distinction, you are a moron and should move out of the country

Quote :

"One benefit of getting rid of the electoral college is that The Long Tail becomes applicable to politics, which gives third party candidates a realistic shot."

right, but you don't have to get rid of the electoral college to do that, just the 2-party aspect of it

Quote :

"ah, my bad. didn't realize you were just a troll"

how am I trolling?

(is this what trolls do now? call others trolls?)



[Edited on December 20, 2007 at 2:05 PM. Reason : ]

12/20/2007 2:04:05 PM

Quote :

"people who live in metropolises have VERY different life experiences than those living a more rural or small town life imagine someone living somewhere where 10,000 other people lived within a few hundred feet ya see why they would tend to vote against guns and residential livestock and for public busing taxes? now imaging someone whose closest neighbor is a few hundred feet away or living in a small town ya see how they would tend to vote the opposite?"

that still doesn't explain why people who live in rural areas deserve more of a say in the vote, just because they are not packed densely into a city.
(i do know the reason, but your rational alone doesn't explain it)

12/20/2007 2:08:11 PM

Quote :

"you yourself said that the "electoral college voids the minority (as in democrat in a red state and vice-versa) from having any power within their state" what that means is that when you are in that minority (dem in nc, rep in ny, etc.) your vote is voided"

i think the point is that with the addition of the 2 electors for each state for the senators, it gives small states an inordinate amount of power. for example:

say one state has 50 electoral votes based on their population. those extra two senate electors is rather insignificant.

but for the state that has only 1 elector, the two extra electors triple their say. this means that the midwest (read: mostly republicans) have far more electors than their number of voters should.

12/20/2007 2:10:14 PM

how are they getting "more of a say in the vote"?

12/20/2007 2:10:19 PM

they have more electors

the ratio of electors/voter is higher.

[Edited on December 20, 2007 at 2:11 PM. Reason : .]

12/20/2007 2:10:48 PM

^^ your rationale ignores one important fact -- Those lifestyle based votes are far more relevant for local, congressional, and senatorial elections, versus the presidency.

Again, the primary benefit for doing away with the electoral college is that it's the only way we can move away from this two party shitfest.

[Edited on December 20, 2007 at 2:15 PM. Reason : dfg]

12/20/2007 2:14:41 PM

Quote :

"i think an electoral vote split is the most likely course that many states might take."

This is more likely as it would not require a constitutional amendment.

12/20/2007 2:15:49 PM

this outlines real arguments for and against in a much more cogent way than anyway here has yet:

http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itdhr/1007/ijde/usefulness.htm

some highlights:

first in favor of keeping the electoral college:

Quote :

"The Electoral College also makes it much less likely that a strictly regional candidate will be elected, since no single region of the United States contains enough electoral votes to choose a president. Critics of the Electoral College system dwell strictly on the number of voters; defenders of the system point to the distribution of those votes and whether they are drawn from a broad cross-section of states and regions of the country."

Quote :

"Throughout American history, the Electoral College system also has made it more difficult for minor party or third-party candidates to be successful in presidential races. Some critics of the present system might point to this as a negative feature of U.S. politics, but the two-party system has served the United States well. By imposing a degree of moderation on American politics, the two-party system has been a major factor in the country's stability. It discourages extremist movements, but, at the same time, if a minor party or candidate proposes ideas that prove popular with the voters, one of the major parties probably will adopt them. An extremist candidate might be able to win the popular vote and the electoral votes in a few states — as happened with Strom Thurmond and his segregationist States Rights party in the 1948 election — but would be unlikely to win the presidency. There is room for protest in American politics under the Electoral College system, but extremism is discouraged."

and against:

Quote :

"Every vote counts equally — but not in the weird arithmetic of the Electoral College, where a citizen's vote in Delaware or North Dakota is mathematically worth far more (measured by the ratio of voters to the state's electors) than a single vote in larger states like California or Texas or New York. But if you weight the votes by the likelihood that voters will actually have an impact on who wins a state's electors, the arbitrariness changes and the disparities grow even more striking. For example, in 2004 the presidential election was settled by a 365-vote difference in the state of New Mexico but by a 312,043-vote difference in Utah, meaning that a voter in New Mexico was hundreds of times more likely to influence the appointment of electors than a voter in Utah."

Quote :

"Every voter should have an equal incentive to vote — but in the United States we don't. The vast majority of people live in states that are considered "safe" areas where the Republicans or Democrats have a presumptive lock on the state's presidential electors. Two-thirds of the states have thus become fly-over territory as the candidates rush to the dwindling band of "swing" states. In the last two election cycles, the two parties spent 99 percent of their campaign resources on a mere 16 states and an astonishing 70 percent in five states. Most of us — including people living in Texas, New York, and California, three of the four largest states — are spectators to the real campaign that takes place in Florida and Ohio and a handful of other states. The bypassing of most of the country depresses turnout in the forgotten states. Voter turnout in the general election approaches 70 percent in swing states but hovers in the low-50s in demoralized spectator states, driving our national turnout rates down to among the lowest on earth."

(this last is my main reason for disliking the electoral college as it is now)

[Edited on December 20, 2007 at 2:22 PM. Reason : .]

12/20/2007 2:20:11 PM

Quote :

"the midwest [states] (read: mostly republicans) have far more electors than their number of voters should."

is balanced with

[individual] metropolites having far more social & political influence than the [few] number of states they live in, should

(poorly worded, I know)

an election isn't just about the prerogatives of people, it's about the prerogatives of states as well

if that's what you disagree with, say so

Quote :

"it's a balance, people. a brilliant balance. (USA #1)"

Quote :

"it's a balance, people. a brilliant balance. (USA #1)"

Quote :

"it's a balance, people. a brilliant balance. (USA #1)"

Quote :

"it's a balance, people. a brilliant balance. (USA #1)"

Quote :

"it's a balance, people. a brilliant balance. (USA #1)"

Quote :

"it's a balance, people. a brilliant balance. (USA #1)"

Quote :

"it's a balance, people. a brilliant balance. (USA #1)"

Quote :

"it's a balance, people. a brilliant balance. (USA #1)"

Quote :

"versus the presidency."

the president is overrated and has too much power (but that's a different issue)

Quote :

"it's the only way we can move away from this two party shitfest."

thanks for ignoring where accurately I pointed out:

Quote :

"right, but you don't have to get rid of the electoral college to do that, just the 2-party aspect of it"

I'm done for now

someone else please take over and explain why these morons are wrong

12/20/2007 2:22:08 PM

^ad hom, among other offenses.

[Edited on December 20, 2007 at 2:23 PM. Reason : and right after i was trying to show both sides]

12/20/2007 2:22:55 PM

I was actually talking about the others, not you

12/20/2007 2:25:58 PM

The electoral college is the reason George Bush was able to murder so many Arabs.

12/20/2007 2:26:00 PM

Quote :

"The electoral college 2-party election system is the reason George Bush was able to murder so many Arabs."

12/20/2007 2:27:28 PM

Quote :

"a popular vote denies a meaningful vote to the entire nations' non-metropolitan minorities"

so.....

if anything they are more likely less educated and will thus make a less informed ignorant vote. Repubs like the electoral college b.c they know they can always count on the all the rednecks, country folk, and christians living in more rural areas to vote for them regardless of platform.

Quote :

"because soooooo much of the nations population is found in metropolitan areas"

do you have any sources for this??? I bet its not quite as skewed as you think. you still FAIL to make a valid point to why if a majority did live in urban areas why their vote should be proportionally less then some rancher whose closest neighbor is 10 miles away.

12/20/2007 2:39:30 PM