November 5, 200817 yr I could go for that plan but I think states like California, Texas, New York, and Florida would object. And THAT is my point exactly!!! Why should my vote count less than theirs? The candidates could no longer ignore ANY state.
November 5, 200817 yr And THAT is my point exactly!!!I guess I am missing that point. Over time, all states will get some tender loving care during presidential candidates under the current system and all will probably be considered "safe" enough to be ignored in other elections. The elimination of the Electoral College would ensure that states like Kentucky would be virtually ignored every election, barring a population explosion.
November 5, 200817 yr I guess I am missing that point. Over time, all states will get some tender loving care during presidential candidates under the current system and all will probably be considered "safe" enough to be ignored in other elections. The elimination of the Electoral College would ensure that states like Kentucky would be virtually ignored every election, barring a population explosion. Again I see your point..I'm not a fan of the EC OR the popular vote... the only other choice is the one I gave...and you and I both know that ain't gonna happen. But,Hoot,you've got me thinking it over.Good Posts!!:thumb:
November 5, 200817 yr Again I see your point..I'm not a fan of the EC OR the popular vote... the only other choice is the one I gave...and you and I both know that ain't gonna happen. But,Hoot,you've got me thinking it over.Good Posts!!:thumb::thumb: Same to you. I might feel differently if I lived in a populous state. In fact, If I were a Californian I would be lobbying to split the states into thirds to gain four more senators and electors. :lol:
November 5, 200817 yr Even fewer states would decide the election without the Electoral College. Candidates would spend nearly all of their time in major media markets instead of visiting out of the way places like Huntington, Beckley, Georgetown, and Marietta. They would spend more time campaigning and less time traveling. Good point I never thought about it that way.
November 5, 200817 yr I strongly favor retaining the Electoral College. Anybody who lives in a small state would be nuts to vote to abolish it.:thumb: :thumb: :thumb: It's really the only way the country as a whole has a voice.
November 5, 200817 yr Party affiliation should have nothing to do with whether one supports the EC. Party registration numbers shift over time and the elimination of the EC would probably be permanent. Even as a Democrat in Kentucky, I would oppose abolishing the current system because candidates would pay even less attention to the state if only the popular vote mattered. There has already been too many state rights taken by the federal government. The Electoral College is a good reminder that the framers of the Constitution thought that the rights of individual states were important. I think Hoot summed up my position better than I ever could. :thumb: If memory serves there has only been 3 elections in our history where the electoral college decided differently than the popular vote. That's not a bad record for spending 220 years electing presidents.
November 5, 200817 yr The EC has to stay. It is the only fair way. I honestly can't see why someone in KY would remotely be in favor of the popular vote.
November 5, 200817 yr Keep it. Some state may more toward a proportional method of alloting the electoral votes. The votes are handed out on the basis of who wins each congressional district in a state. The overall winner of the vote in the state them get the 2 electoral votes that represents the states senators to Congress. I a cannot think of them, but I believe 2 states have already adopted this method.
November 5, 200817 yr Maybe the most fair way is to keep the electoral college, but mandate so that the primaries are in order of states with the least electoral votes up. That way the small states have more of a voice in choosing their candidates, and the big states vote them in (like they already do)
November 5, 200817 yr The number of senators and representatives is what determines the amount of electoral votes a state receives, correct? Each state has two senate votes and the number representatives is determined by population, correct? I'm having trouble figuring out why population of small states would matter if the popular vote is used but it doesn't matter with the electoral college. They still don't get the same amount of votes as larger states. Also, I talked to someone last night that sounded discouraged at the fact that the guy he elected won, but since he's a KY resident he knew there was zero chance of him taking a part in that cause. I wonder how many people think that in certain states and don't even "waste their time" to vote. Popular vote may increase voter turnout as well. JMO, which very well could be wrong...
November 5, 200817 yr The number of senators and representatives is what determines the amount of electoral votes a state receives, correct? Each state has two senate votes and the number representatives is determined by population, correct? I'm having trouble figuring out why population of small states would matter if the popular vote is used but it doesn't matter with the electoral college. They still don't get the same amount of votes as larger states. Also, I talked to someone last night that sounded discouraged at the fact that the guy he elected won, but since he's a KY resident he knew there was zero chance of him taking a part in that cause. I wonder how many people think that in certain states and don't even "waste their time" to vote. Popular vote may increase voter turnout as well. JMO, which very well could be wrong... The fact that each state, even the small ones, receives at least 2 Senators, greatly increases their voting power instead of it had been by popular vote. Presidential candidates would never have to leave NY, Chicago, San Fran, LA, Houston, Dallas, etc. because their total populations far, far outweigh any of the Midwestern or Southern states.
November 5, 200817 yr The fact that each state, even the small ones, receives at least 2 Senators, greatly increases their voting power instead of it had been by popular vote. Presidential candidates would never have to leave NY, Chicago, San Fran, LA, Houston, Dallas, etc. because their total populations far, far outweigh any of the Midwestern or Southern states. They currently centralize their voting efforts anyway. Rabbit Hash still won't see a presidential candidate any time soon...
November 5, 200817 yr Similar to post of bballfamily, I must have missed it before I posted. How about this: We keep the electoral college BUT do what I think Nebraska does and distribute the electoral votes based on percentage instead of a winner take all. the rounding up would go to the person who is receives the majority of the state. Candidate would then have to have a more national campaign. Kentucky 5 votes for McCain 3 for Obama In the race to 270, you simply could not discount those three votes, or you might try to make it 4. It is the winner take all systems that messes everything up and keeps states from being "important".
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.