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: 08-12-2004
Wed, 10-13-2004 - 10:01pm
<>

Yes they were, so it in our power to right those wrongs and bring about a more just system. Are you saying you are opposed to that?

<< How do you figure the E.C. is stupid? >>

Here's how it is stupid, because now national election results are being dictated by the less populated states. I am for the results being dictated by the will of the people of the United States equally no matter what state they live in. If you have a direct popular vote it doesn't matter which state you live in your vote will count the same as anybody elses. Anything less than that and you are promoting injustice.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-12-2004
Wed, 10-13-2004 - 10:08pm
A state is an artificial construct, it is human beings that matter.

Let's take your argument out to its logical extreme- What if a state (any state) had a population of 1 thousand, and what if another state had a population of 20 million. Do you think the state with a population of one thousand should have the same ability to choose a President as a state with 20 million?

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-12-2004
Wed, 10-13-2004 - 10:12pm
The reasoning behind the E.C. is based on the mistrust of the people by the landed aristocracy in the 1700's.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Wed, 10-13-2004 - 10:14pm
I'm not opposed to a more just system. But that's not what you're advocating.

And you're incorrect, BTW, the lower population states aren't dictating the election results. They've simply got more influence than they would have otherwise, bringing them roughly on par with states with higher populations. Again, the purpose behind the E.C.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Wed, 10-13-2004 - 10:22pm
And places with more human beings, by your plan, would have a disproportionate influence. Unless of course you're also advocating doing away with those artificial, political/geographic constructs known as states. Otherwise, more heavily populated artificial constructs would still have a disproportionate influence on national elections.

"Do you think the state with a population of one thousand should have the same ability to choose a President as a state with 20 million?"

Nope, and that's not the situation we have now. Different states have different number of electoral votes to allow for such differences, only within a given range. The idea behind the E.C. is not to balance them all out perfectly evenly, but to get all of them to a relatively happy medium, with no state or states being totally irrelevant or being overly influential.

In the case of the hypothetical you posed, the values of the respective states would be increased somewhat on one hand and decreased somewhat on the other. The lower population state wouldn't have quite as low a value as it's pure population would otherwise indicate, and the more populated state wouldn't have quite as great a value as it's population would indicate. Look at the actual EC values of the various states as it now stands and you'll see this in action in actual practice.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Wed, 10-13-2004 - 10:27pm
LOL! Sure, whatever you say.

That may have been the rationale on the part of some individuals at the time, based on their personal perspectives, but objectively taken as a whole and in regards to national elections the *reasoning* (not rationale, or excuse) was just as myself and some others have noted, to prevent more highly populated and larger states from controlling national elections. That's the practical purpose behind the EC, and it works. That's also why it's still a valid, effective protection for our electoral system.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-12-2004
Wed, 10-13-2004 - 10:37pm
How is one person one vote not more just? Get the idea of states out of your head for a minute, a state is an invention of human beings, it is the human beings that matter not their Frankenstein like invention of a State.

From the Federal Election Commission website report on the Electoral College-



In 1988 the combined voting age population (3,119,000) of the seven least populous jurisdictions of Alaska, Delaware, the District of Columbia, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming carried the same voting strength in the Electoral College (21 electoral votes) as the 9,614,000 persons of voting age in the State of Florida. Each Floridian's potential vote, then, carried about one third the weight of a potential vote in the other states listed.

It is you who is incorrect.


Edited 10/13/2004 10:41 pm ET ET by splum2004

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-06-2004
Wed, 10-13-2004 - 11:00pm
"In 1988 the combined voting age population (3,119,000) of the seven least populous jurisdictions of Alaska, Delaware, the District of Columbia, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming carried the same voting strength in the Electoral College (21 electoral votes) as the 9,614,000 persons of voting age in the State of Florida. Each Floridian's potential vote, then, carried about one third the weight of a potential vote in the other states listed."

You are incorrect. What you should have said was:

"In 1988 the combined voting age population (3,119,000) of the seven least populous jurisdictions of Alaska, Delaware, the District of Columbia, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming carried the same voting strength in the Electoral College (21 electoral votes) as the 9,614,000 persons of voting age in the State of Florida. Each Floridian's potential vote, then, carried about one third the weight of a potential vote in the other COMBINED states listed."

And it's totally irrelevant.

Article V of the U.S. Constitution allows enough similarly minded voters to change it. Have at it.

To merely more shrilly denounce the Electoral College because it isn't "fair" because Bush won won't gain you much support, and certainly not enough to elect Kerry.


Edited 10/13/2004 11:01 pm ET ET by frvt

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-12-2004
Wed, 10-13-2004 - 11:15pm
What I wrote was taken off the F.E.C. report, they didn't say COMBINED, (although I'm sure it was implied).

I don't believe I am shrilly denounceing anything, but I do admit that this has bothered me for many years. Bush-Gore, Bush-Kerry, that has nothing to do with it. I've been against this for more than 25 years, and I'm not thinking about this election, I just think it is the right thing to do and I would be happy if the situation was made more equitable in my lifetime. You know there are Republicans in Florida, California, New York and Texas too.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Wed, 10-13-2004 - 11:30pm
It's not "more just" because it would allow specific geopolitical regions to control the election. It's no more complicated than that. You cannot avoid the issue of "states" because they exist, will continue to exist, and are an integral part of our form of government. You can't just dismiss them because they're inconvenient to your argument.

" It is you who is incorrect."

Not in the slightest. Through the electoral college system neither the lower population nor the higher population states can control the election... that's the whole point of the E.C. All your factoid demonstrates is how the E.C. levels the playing field and prevents any small group of states from having too much power over the determination of president and vice president.

~mark~