The second thing is it balances the big states against the smaller states. I'm sure the folks in Idaho wouldn't appreciate it when California via there large population and majority voted to make Idaho a gigantic landfill. Our system of checks and balances always places some sort of hedge on the tyranny of the majority.
I wouldn't say that has anything to do with the electoral college. The EC is an acronym, err anachronism. It was put in place because the president wasn't popularly elected. He was elected by the electors who were chosen by the states. They were going to have the prez elected by Congress, but some people didn't like that, so they decided as a compromise to use these electors, equal in number to the state's congressional delegation. The electoral college does virtually nothing for small states, and it never did. The Senate helps small states, yes, but the EC doesn't. If anything, it emphasizes the importance of the large states because they have so many electoral votes.
Instead I did the only thing that I could have done to make a difference: I voted for Nader.
What amazes me about this is the fact that I read that Georgia was the only state in which Nader got zero votes. I didn't believe it when I read it and now I guess I know why.
The electoral college does two things. One it attempts to give more of a mandate to the winner. (We don't like wimpy prime ministers who have coalitions fall apart and suddenly the government is in crisis and elections have to be called.)
How does the electoral college create a mandate more than the popular vote? We're still talking about a plurality voting system. Weak coalition governments only occur in proportional voting systems (like Italy or Israel), but not in plurality systems (like the U.S. or the U.K.).
Quote:
The second thing is it balances the big states against the smaller states. I'm sure the folks in Idaho wouldn't appreciate it when California via there large population and majority voted to make Idaho a gigantic landfill. Our system of checks and balances always places some sort of hedge on the tyranny of the majority.
Again, we're talking about a presidential election being changed from the electoral college to popular vote. What you say makes no sense. The president should be voted in by the majority, not by voters chosen by a majority of each state. The president, as a national office, should represent equally all people in the nation regardless of state. But based on the current system, you and I, as Californians, are clearly underrepresented. California makes up 12% of the total U.S. population, but only makes up 10% of the electoral college. That's more of a difference than I'd like to continue. I'm already way underrepresented in the Senate.
Hehe this reminds me of a Leno monologue. How the HELL can you stupid Floridians not punch a chad? oh wait...Since it's the old people who golf community then perhaps they died while they were voting. Or they fell asleep in the middle of punching.
Quote:
The problem isn't the electoral college but the way the congressional districts are cut up to give the election to one party or another. EC member always vote the way they are "supposed" to.
Another can of worms. We learned of mob rule like trumptman mentions in poli sci, the tyranny of the majority. The founders of this country knew that the average Joe was too stupid to make political decisions so they put in place many things, the EC being one example. But I think it has worn out. Representative government like Europe looks nicer, where if 20% of people vote Green that's what we get.
Quote:
The EC is an acronym, err anachronism.
Good form Jack, Good form.
Quote:
No, he has to pull Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein out his ass by then...and I guarantee...that's where they're hiding.
...
Well, seems many are seeing the light...or the dark tunnel ahead.
So they're hiding up that dark tunnel? That is a good punishment.
I'm sure Bush could pull another war out of his ass. Liberia. South America. Central America. Korea. Kashmir. Anywhere in Africa. Hell he could invade Cuba and do it. He is all powerful, his administration is seemingly unstoppable. And of course he is just trying to help people with compassionated conservatatoryism.
The electoral college does virtually nothing for small states, and it never did. The Senate helps small states, yes, but the EC doesn't. If anything, it emphasizes the importance of the large states because they have so many electoral votes.
.....
Forget it, this has been beaten to death. If you don't get it there's nothing anyone can say to change that.
Hehe this reminds me of a Leno monologue. How the HELL can you stupid Floridians not punch a chad? oh wait...Since it's the old people who golf community then perhaps they died while they were voting. Or they fell asleep in the middle of punching.
Another can of worms. We learned of mob rule like trumptman mentions in poli sci, the tyranny of the majority. The founders of this country knew that the average Joe was too stupid to make political decisions so they put in place many things, the EC being one example. But I think it has worn out. Representative government like Europe looks nicer, where if 20% of people vote Green that's what we get.
Good form Jack, Good form.
So they're hiding up that dark tunnel? That is a good punishment.
I'm sure Bush could pull another war out of his ass. Liberia. South America. Central America. Korea. Kashmir. Anywhere in Africa. Hell he could invade Cuba and do it. He is all powerful, his administration is seemingly unstoppable. And of course he is just trying to help people with compassionated conservatatoryism.
SDW is your children learning?
Ah but another war at this time could be damaging not helpful. I'm sure he's smart enough to have figured that one out.
The electoral college does virtually nothing for small states, and it never did.
Not true. California's population for the year 2000 was 33,871,648. Wyoming's was 493,782. California has 54 electoral votes. Wyoming has three. This means that the 493,782 citizens of Wyoming have the same representation in the electoral college as do 1,881758 Californians.
Election 2004 mandates the presence of U.N. election monitors, especially with those Diebold "DRE" voting machines which are about to be unleashed on a unsuspecting public. They are going to use these in the upcoming California recall.....
Whats the point of even voting if this is the way of the future?
Not true. California's population for the year 2000 was 33,871,648. Wyoming's was 493,782. California has 54 electoral votes. Wyoming has three. This means that the 493,782 citizens of Wyoming have the same representation in the electoral college as do 1,881758 Californians.
exactly. there's nothing to debunk unless you want to debunk math.
For Bush remain in power after November 2004 his best bets are:
(a)start another war...say Syria, Iran, Libya, etc. in September or October of 2004: Americans traditionally rally behind the president in wartime (of course he won't touch his terrorism sponsoring buddies in the Saudi government/big oil/royal family circle of elites)...
or (b) for there to be another ("conveniently" timed major terrorist attack on the United States, in the run up to the election, in early October 2004.
(c) for the economy to have a sudden and rapid turnaround....although that is probably less likely than (b).
(d) arbitrarily raise the terrorism threat color code to "red" in October 2004. "Red" will mean suspension of elections, dusk to dawn curfews, all the trappings of martial law.
(e) to somehow weasel their way out of major scandal...and public scrutiny of such...
(f) Osama bin Laden and/or Saddam Hussein are miraculously apprehended/killed or whatever...but in the run up to the election, of course. (!)
Failing any/all of the above..
(g) for the American public to remain eternally somnolent, doped up, led by the nose, continuing to believe in manufactured monsters and lies, while relying on an unquestioning, obedient, far-right biased, corporate controlled media to disseminate them.
And...when the election finally happens, there's those pesky voting machines to deal with....nobody will have any way of knowing for sure who really won...
Not true. California's population for the year 2000 was 33,871,648. Wyoming's was 493,782. California has 54 electoral votes. Wyoming has three. This means that the 493,782 citizens of Wyoming have the same representation in the electoral college as do 1,881758 Californians.
Right, but those Wyoming votes aren't counted separately. They're pooled together into a whopping 0.6% of the electoral votes. Why should a candidate ever go there or care what happens to Wyomingers? By contrast, CA has 10% of the electoral college, TX has 6%, NY has 6%, and FL has 5%. We know which states are the important ones from a candidate's perspective by seeing how many electoral votes they have, not how much "vote power" each individual in a state has.
If each individual counted separately rather than being pooled with electors, a candidate would care just as much about what happened to a Wyominger as a Californian. But the pooled nature of the current electoral system means candidates don't give a rip about Wyomingers, and treat Californians (and more generally, the large states with close poll numbers) like Gods. If Wyoming had been as close as FL in 2000, do you think anyone would have cared?
In effect, the slight mathematical advantage given to the small states by the manner in which electoral votes are dolled out doesn't overcome the huge disadvantage they get from the way the electoral college pools votes together.
How the HELL can you stupid Floridians not punch a chad?
A good friend of mine had the same problem while living in Chicago. He votes mostly republican too. And after punching all of the dots he cared about he noticed the hanging chunks of paper. When he asked the people working the polls if it was OK with those things hanging off they told him of course.
Naturally he was pissed as hell when the fact that your ballot could become invalid because of those 'chads.'
Thanks for that clear explanation BRussell. Bunge that's quite a story. People elsewhere must think Electiongate is funny in a wry sort of way. Even I think it's funny in a way. There's a whole new terminology. I'd never heard of "chads" before.
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
The second thing is it balances the big states against the smaller states. I'm sure the folks in Idaho wouldn't appreciate it when California via there large population and majority voted to make Idaho a gigantic landfill. Our system of checks and balances always places some sort of hedge on the tyranny of the majority.
I wouldn't say that has anything to do with the electoral college. The EC is an acronym, err anachronism. It was put in place because the president wasn't popularly elected. He was elected by the electors who were chosen by the states. They were going to have the prez elected by Congress, but some people didn't like that, so they decided as a compromise to use these electors, equal in number to the state's congressional delegation. The electoral college does virtually nothing for small states, and it never did. The Senate helps small states, yes, but the EC doesn't. If anything, it emphasizes the importance of the large states because they have so many electoral votes.
Originally posted by torifile
Instead I did the only thing that I could have done to make a difference: I voted for Nader.
What amazes me about this is the fact that I read that Georgia was the only state in which Nader got zero votes. I didn't believe it when I read it and now I guess I know why.
Originally posted by trumptman
The electoral college does two things. One it attempts to give more of a mandate to the winner. (We don't like wimpy prime ministers who have coalitions fall apart and suddenly the government is in crisis and elections have to be called.)
How does the electoral college create a mandate more than the popular vote? We're still talking about a plurality voting system. Weak coalition governments only occur in proportional voting systems (like Italy or Israel), but not in plurality systems (like the U.S. or the U.K.).
The second thing is it balances the big states against the smaller states. I'm sure the folks in Idaho wouldn't appreciate it when California via there large population and majority voted to make Idaho a gigantic landfill. Our system of checks and balances always places some sort of hedge on the tyranny of the majority.
Again, we're talking about a presidential election being changed from the electoral college to popular vote. What you say makes no sense. The president should be voted in by the majority, not by voters chosen by a majority of each state. The president, as a national office, should represent equally all people in the nation regardless of state. But based on the current system, you and I, as Californians, are clearly underrepresented. California makes up 12% of the total U.S. population, but only makes up 10% of the electoral college. That's more of a difference than I'd like to continue. I'm already way underrepresented in the Senate.
The problem isn't the electoral college but the way the congressional districts are cut up to give the election to one party or another. EC member always vote the way they are "supposed" to.
Another can of worms. We learned of mob rule like trumptman mentions in poli sci, the tyranny of the majority. The founders of this country knew that the average Joe was too stupid to make political decisions so they put in place many things, the EC being one example. But I think it has worn out. Representative government like Europe looks nicer, where if 20% of people vote Green that's what we get.
The EC is an acronym, err anachronism.
Good form Jack, Good form.
No, he has to pull Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein out his ass by then...and I guarantee...that's where they're hiding.
...
Well, seems many are seeing the light...or the dark tunnel ahead.
So they're hiding up that dark tunnel? That is a good punishment.
I'm sure Bush could pull another war out of his ass. Liberia. South America. Central America. Korea. Kashmir. Anywhere in Africa. Hell he could invade Cuba and do it. He is all powerful, his administration is seemingly unstoppable. And of course he is just trying to help people with compassionated conservatatoryism.
SDW is your children learning?
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
This is certainly true.
He became President even though he polled 56,000 fewer votes than Al Gore.
Hey, i think that number was 560.000!
The electoral college does virtually nothing for small states, and it never did. The Senate helps small states, yes, but the EC doesn't. If anything, it emphasizes the importance of the large states because they have so many electoral votes.
.....
Forget it, this has been beaten to death. If you don't get it there's nothing anyone can say to change that.
Originally posted by New
Hey, i think that number was 560.000!
Details, details, details.
Originally posted by Longhorn
.....
Forget it, this has been beaten to death. If you don't get it there's nothing anyone can say to change that.
And still noone at AI have explained how this is a benefit for smaller states.
At least give us a link to debunk.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Hold on folks, jimmac has his manual out again.
Hey, this never stopped being the truth!
Originally posted by Aquatic
Hehe this reminds me of a Leno monologue. How the HELL can you stupid Floridians not punch a chad? oh wait...Since it's the old people who golf community then perhaps they died while they were voting. Or they fell asleep in the middle of punching.
Another can of worms. We learned of mob rule like trumptman mentions in poli sci, the tyranny of the majority. The founders of this country knew that the average Joe was too stupid to make political decisions so they put in place many things, the EC being one example. But I think it has worn out. Representative government like Europe looks nicer, where if 20% of people vote Green that's what we get.
Good form Jack, Good form.
So they're hiding up that dark tunnel? That is a good punishment.
I'm sure Bush could pull another war out of his ass. Liberia. South America. Central America. Korea. Kashmir. Anywhere in Africa. Hell he could invade Cuba and do it. He is all powerful, his administration is seemingly unstoppable. And of course he is just trying to help people with compassionated conservatatoryism.
SDW is your children learning?
Ah but another war at this time could be damaging not helpful. I'm sure he's smart enough to have figured that one out.
Originally posted by BRussell
The electoral college does virtually nothing for small states, and it never did.
Not true. California's population for the year 2000 was 33,871,648. Wyoming's was 493,782. California has 54 electoral votes. Wyoming has three. This means that the 493,782 citizens of Wyoming have the same representation in the electoral college as do 1,881758 Californians.
Whats the point of even voting if this is the way of the future?
Ugh.
Not true. California's population for the year 2000 was 33,871,648. Wyoming's was 493,782. California has 54 electoral votes. Wyoming has three. This means that the 493,782 citizens of Wyoming have the same representation in the electoral college as do 1,881758 Californians.
exactly. there's nothing to debunk unless you want to debunk math.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
This means that the 493,782 citizens of Wyoming have the same representation in the electoral college as do 1,881758 Californians.
Bingo.
(a)start another war...say Syria, Iran, Libya, etc. in September or October of 2004: Americans traditionally rally behind the president in wartime (of course he won't touch his terrorism sponsoring buddies in the Saudi government/big oil/royal family circle of elites)...
or (b) for there to be another ("conveniently" timed major terrorist attack on the United States, in the run up to the election, in early October 2004.
(c) for the economy to have a sudden and rapid turnaround....although that is probably less likely than (b).
(d) arbitrarily raise the terrorism threat color code to "red" in October 2004. "Red" will mean suspension of elections, dusk to dawn curfews, all the trappings of martial law.
(e) to somehow weasel their way out of major scandal...and public scrutiny of such...
(f) Osama bin Laden and/or Saddam Hussein are miraculously apprehended/killed or whatever...but in the run up to the election, of course. (!)
Failing any/all of the above..
(g) for the American public to remain eternally somnolent, doped up, led by the nose, continuing to believe in manufactured monsters and lies, while relying on an unquestioning, obedient, far-right biased, corporate controlled media to disseminate them.
And...when the election finally happens, there's those pesky voting machines to deal with....nobody will have any way of knowing for sure who really won...
Paranoid yet?
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Not true. California's population for the year 2000 was 33,871,648. Wyoming's was 493,782. California has 54 electoral votes. Wyoming has three. This means that the 493,782 citizens of Wyoming have the same representation in the electoral college as do 1,881758 Californians.
Right, but those Wyoming votes aren't counted separately. They're pooled together into a whopping 0.6% of the electoral votes. Why should a candidate ever go there or care what happens to Wyomingers? By contrast, CA has 10% of the electoral college, TX has 6%, NY has 6%, and FL has 5%. We know which states are the important ones from a candidate's perspective by seeing how many electoral votes they have, not how much "vote power" each individual in a state has.
If each individual counted separately rather than being pooled with electors, a candidate would care just as much about what happened to a Wyominger as a Californian. But the pooled nature of the current electoral system means candidates don't give a rip about Wyomingers, and treat Californians (and more generally, the large states with close poll numbers) like Gods. If Wyoming had been as close as FL in 2000, do you think anyone would have cared?
In effect, the slight mathematical advantage given to the small states by the manner in which electoral votes are dolled out doesn't overcome the huge disadvantage they get from the way the electoral college pools votes together.
Originally posted by Aquatic
How the HELL can you stupid Floridians not punch a chad?
A good friend of mine had the same problem while living in Chicago. He votes mostly republican too. And after punching all of the dots he cared about he noticed the hanging chunks of paper. When he asked the people working the polls if it was OK with those things hanging off they told him of course.
Naturally he was pissed as hell when the fact that your ballot could become invalid because of those 'chads.'
Originally posted by jimmac
Hey, this never stopped being the truth!
Yeah, but that's all he's got