TexasCHLforum.com

45 4 life wrote:My problem with the electoral college is that those heavy populated areas of the country can in fact determine who wins our federal elections, and I feel did in the last Presidential race. Obama spent hours upon hours and dollars upon dollars campaigning for the inner city votes. He got all of those electoral votes from california based on winning the popular vote in 2 or 3 counties....

Should we have a system where the Presidential Election could be determined by 2 counties in a single state, and those 2 counties having the highest unemployment rates, and goverment assistance in the state. Or am I being to hypothetical?

Your problem only gets worse if we go to a purely popular vote. That's because the states with a small population are going to lose those two extra electoral votes and just put their votes in with the huge bucket, into the noise floor. The majority of the time, the elections would be decided by only 9 states based on popular vote. In virtually every case, no more than 20 states will be decisive. There are counties in NY and CA that would have far more popular votes than small states.

For example, according to the numbers I can research right now (reported on wikipedia), Al Gore would have won the 2000 election if it were a purely popular-vote election.

Also, what happens when there is no popular-vote majority, such as with 18 of our Presidents to date? Do we have a run-off? I would have liked to see the run-off results of the 1992 election if it was run-off between Clinton and Bush without Perot in the mix. But the point is that the electoral college fixes this run-off problem as well. We may not have had Lincoln, Clinton, Wilson, Adams, etc. if there was a two-person runoff for the popular vote.

Purely popular vote will exacerbate the problem of a small number of states or counties, narrow demographic groups, etc. having greater influence over Presidential elections. It would be an enormous step backwards, and if the 17th Amendment is any indication, a mistake which would be impossible (politically) to ever correct.

It is critical that we maintain the electoral college.

45 4 life wrote:My problem with the electoral college is that those heavy populated areas of the country can in fact determine who wins our federal elections, and I feel did in the last Presidential race. Obama spent hours upon hours and dollars upon dollars campaigning for the inner city votes. He got all of those electoral votes from california based on winning the popular vote in 2 or 3 counties.

I have spoken to many people in the northern parts of cal. that did not vote having the old excuse that their vote would not matter. Popular vote would also get these individuals to the poles.

Should we have a system where the Presidential Election could be determined by 2 counties in a single state, and those 2 counties having the highest unemployment rates, and goverment assistance in the state. Or am I being to hypothetical?

You understand that this is a two-way street right? In the case of popular vote, many of the states that consistently go conservative, would have virtually no say in the direction of the country due to their low populations.

A more apt solution would be to only allow land owners to vote as well as prohibit people from voting if they're on any sort of governmental aid/welfare/assistance. Why allow those who aren't contributing decide the direction?

The top 1% of earners in this nation contribute 39% of the tax revenue, while the bottom 50% only contribute 3%. Guess which group consumes more federal benefits?

Is it or is it not true (I only recall vaguely and that is why I ask) that the Electoral College is not compelled to cast its vote in accordance with the majority vote on a state by state basis?

Purplehood wrote:Is it or is it not true (I only recall vaguely and that is why I ask) that the Electoral College is not compelled to cast its vote in accordance with the majority vote on a state by state basis?

Varies by state as to the level of enforcement, but almost always do vote that way.

chamberc wrote:

Purplehood wrote:Is it or is it not true (I only recall vaguely and that is why I ask) that the Electoral College is not compelled to cast its vote in accordance with the majority vote on a state by state basis?

Varies by state as to the level of enforcement, but almost always do vote that way.

It has been literally years since I visited the issue of the Electoral College and why it ticked me off to begin with. Now I am forced to research it again, as I seem to recall this particular issue being my main beef with it.

Purplehood wrote:Is it or is it not true (I only recall vaguely and that is why I ask) that the Electoral College is not compelled to cast its vote in accordance with the majority vote on a state by state basis?

why not read about it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_ ... _States%29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In 24 states, there are state laws that are in place to punish electors who do not vote according to their pledged vote. The Supreme Court has upheld laws that require electors to make a pledge to vote for the candidate who gets the most votes. The constitutionality of states punishing electors for voting against their pledged vote has not been challenged at the Supreme Court. These "faithless electors" have never changed or impacted the outcome of a Presidential election, which is likely why they have not wound up before the Supreme Court.

It's fascinating to read about. But it's not something that is somehow made irrelevant by virtue of technology as was suggested. In fact, the continued increase of population density in large cities on the coasts further bolsters the need for the electoral college in order to allow states to have an adequate say in the election of the President.

mr.72 I feel better educated today. Goes to prove you are never to old to learn.

Thanks

Reading and understanding are so tedious... I want all of my info spoon-fed to me. Oh wait, that is Fox news!

Purplehood wrote:Reading and understanding are so tedious... I want all of my info spoon-fed to me. Oh wait, that is Fox news!

Just because you don't like a message doesn't make it untrue. After watching MSM for so long, most people don't recognize unbiased news.

Tell a conservative a lie and that will anger them... tell a liberal the truth and that will anger them.

Ouch!

What would be interesting to see is if more states went the the Congressional District Method, similar to Maine and Nebraska. Then an entire state's populous vote would not decide which candidate gets all of the electoral college votes. They would split based on the winner of the district. NY, California, and Texas would get broken up quite a bit. Areas like Austin, Houston and Dallas might more often go Democratic (read Progressive) and the other areas would go Republican or Conservative. If you look at the entire county map that they use currently, that would make things VERY intriguing.

chamberc wrote:

Purplehood wrote:Reading and understanding are so tedious... I want all of my info spoon-fed to me. Oh wait, that is Fox news!

Just because you don't like a message doesn't make it untrue. After watching MSM for so long, most people don't recognize unbiased news.

Tell a conservative a lie and that will anger them... tell a liberal the truth and that will anger them.

At least on Fox they tell you the orientation so that you can utilize respective filters. MSNBC is so blatant it is deplorable, especially after the incident with the armed protesters. After spending a couple of evening watching Lou Dobbs on CNN I have much more respect for O'Reilly. He goes after everyone, regardless of viewpoint.

I'll stop hi-jacking and return to the Electoral College discussion.

It's not the left vs. the right: It's the state versus you.

The Dems and Republicans in Congress are like wrestlers who have to fight in the ring,
then when the day's blathering and finger-pointing are done, they all go have drinks together.
They all live high on the hog on our dime. They are divorced from reality.

Democrats are criticized for "taxing and spending." They never met a federal program that
they didn't like. Obama may have had the votes of a lot of people, but he's killing his 2nd term chances by
this massive overspending. If we keep on the path of massive deficits, get ready to start speaking
Chinese and be mandated to buy some Chinese rice wagon deathtrap car.

Republicans claim to be for personal responsibility. But then they "Untax and keep on spending."
Deregulation has lead to the pickle our economy is in today. Those of us around who remember the
massive Savings and Loan crisis can't believe the US government is now bailing out corporations.

The problem with the federal deficit is that both parties keep on kicking the can down the road.
No one owns the deficit so each party holds power until they screw things up so bad the other side
gets in and then they get a chance to screw it up in their own fashion.

SIA

Here here... at this point there is so little difference between what the Dimrats and the GOP is doing, it's hard to find anyone to support.

We need someone to come along and elminate 60% to 80% of the federal government.