USA Electoral College 2004
Find a Conversation
USA Electoral College 2004
| 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

Pages
And no, telling me in effect to forget about the existance of the states won't make them go away.
~mark~
Ensuring that small states have a legitimate value in national elections isn't controlling the election, it's insuring that those states actually contribute, actually have an influence on the election which they would not have otherwise.
"The Electoral College does not level the playing field, it distorts it."
Yeah, you keep saying that, and keep right on ignoring the reality of a various few states being able to dictate the results of a national election, to the detriment of the country as a whole. Doing away with the E.C. would result in states like Wyoming and the others being utterly irrelevant to national elections.
If you want to allow a few states to determine who the president and vice president are, at least have the decency to come right out and say it, because that's precisely what we'd get if we abandoned the E.C. They only way your scheme could even approximate "fair" would be if population density was uniform throughout the US, and needless to say it's not. The E.C. compensates for that fact.
~mark~
To just say that an existing law for over two hundred years should be ignored because it isn't "fair" is naive at best, immature at worst.
~mark~
That was the Federal Election Commissions own data they used to give an example, the year is really not important, it is the concept. Thank you.
and having a "one person equals one vote" system,
to reflect exactly the votes of USA citizens. >
We live in a democratic republic-individual states are supposed to be represented in the federal government. Would it really be fair that large swaths of the nation would have no say in who is president, and elections would be decided basically by New York City and Los Angeles? I don't think so. In any case, a constitutional amendment to eliminate the electoral college will never pass, as it must be ratified by 3/4 of the states. I doubt there will ever be enough states willing to voluntarily give up their representation in the executive branch.
You betcha-it's already happening. The Democrats will make sure that if W wins they try to strip the win of any credibility. The heck with bringing our country together, they'd rather divide and conquer.
If elections were decided solely by major metroplitan areas, don't you think presidential candidates would be pandering solely to big city issues, and ignoring the issues that affect large parts of the country? Does that really sound fair to you?
Pages