USA Electoral College 2004

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-06-2001
USA Electoral College 2004
59
Wed, 10-13-2004 - 5:30pm
Dear IVillagers,

Nothing would please me more than eliminating the Electoral College system,

and having a "one person equals one vote" system,

to reflect exactly the votes of USA citizens.

Nonetheless, as IVillage cl-Libraone has noted here on IVillage,

that Colorado has the option to vote into law that Colorado's Electoral College votes be 'split' between the candidates- proportioned to be much more a reflection of voter's

actual votes.



Colorado's system shall be better than the present mess,

and would go into effect this election, if passed by Colorado voters-

my hope is that this does indeed happen, Election 2004 !!!

ForeverHugs,

--Genietowner

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-31-2003
Wed, 10-13-2004 - 8:39pm
"It is not totally obsolete, but when it was set up there were many small states, each fiercely interested in their own rights more than that of the nation as a whole.

The system of giving electors based on congressional representation is flawed because each state has a different "value" for its votes compared to every other state because of differences in population. A vote in Florida counts a whole lot less than a vote in Wyoming for instance, because states with smaller populations still get two electors for their senators and at least one for their representative(s) in the house. This means that the relative weight a vote for whoever you choose will be different in every state."

So, these conditions no longer exist? Wyoming no longer has a smaller population than a state like Florida?

"Why Should it be that way in this highly technological age?" What does technology have to do with the reasons the electoral college was set up? Why should advancing technology impact the electoral college?

NIU Ribbon   Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-06-2004
Wed, 10-13-2004 - 8:49pm
"BTW a similar type of problem exists with the US Senate."

Many argue that the 17th amendment was the worst thing that ever happened to America.

Fascinating reading. Thanks for the prompt.


Edited 10/13/2004 8:50 pm ET ET by frvt

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-12-2004
Wed, 10-13-2004 - 8:51pm
These conditions do still exist, the imbalance was wrong before, and it is wrong now.

We can count, monitor, and report election results so much faster now. Before the results of the election might not have even been known until someone went on horseback to report results to a meeting of the electors. The system had its day. Its day is long past.

I'm not for keeping tradition for traditions sake in something so important as a natiional election. If we were a nation like that we would still be taking orders from the King or Queen of England.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Wed, 10-13-2004 - 8:56pm
The Electoral College is a safeguard for our electoral system as a whole, protecting the country from having the large or more heavily populated states dictate the election for the country as a whole. As such getting rid of it would be just as foolish and ill-advised as getting rid of other such Constitutional protections. This country has never relied on "one-person one-vote", and for very good reason. There's been a couple of links posted in this thread going into detail on just what the E.C. is, what it does, and why it's important to our system of government.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-12-2004
Wed, 10-13-2004 - 9:03pm
<>

There is no very good reason that trumps the justice that would result from making votes equal.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Wed, 10-13-2004 - 9:06pm
Sorry, but your comparisons and analogy fall short. For one thing, the things you note were the result of bigotry and prejudice, not well reasoned, objective analysis of the electoral process or anything else. For another, they were designed to protect along racial lines, whereas the E.C. protects our entire electoral system as well as the votes of the people.

How do you figure the E.C. is stupid? It was designed to (and does) prevent unfair or undue dictating of the national election results from being determined solely by the few largest and most heavily populated states, to the detriment of all the others.

How is it an anachronism? It was designed to deal with large states and those with large population bases compared to most other states. Do you feel we no longer have some states which are much larger than others? Do you believe population is evenly distributed between the 50 states? If the same conditions exist now as existed when the E.C. was conceived, and the same electoral system exists, how is the E.C. an anachronism?

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Wed, 10-13-2004 - 9:10pm
So long as there is no means of correcting for the disparity caused by the extremely high populations of some states and the relative low populations of others, there would be no equality. The relative few heavily populated states would dictate the results of elections no matter what the citizens of the other states chose. That's why the E.C. exists, to level the playing field for everyone. Otherwise you'd have New York, California, Florida, and a very few others deciding who the president would be.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Wed, 10-13-2004 - 9:11pm

Long time, no see!


You're voice of reason & moderation has been missed.

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Wed, 10-13-2004 - 9:14pm
" We can count, monitor, and report election results so much faster now. Before the results of the election might not have even been known until someone went on horseback to report results to a meeting of the electors."

None of which has even the slightest bearing on the reasoning behind the E.C.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Wed, 10-13-2004 - 9:17pm
Thanks Renee. I've actually been around, not too disgusted by-and-large with the partisan rhetoric and associated garbage to participate much.

~mark~