The Electorial College

[curtoid]

Ugh - I hate this election / I love this election. This looks to be at least as close as the one in 2000.

Right now (today - October 19th - Amy Carter's birthday) things are pretty much in a dead heat all across the board.

While Bush can be happy that he didn't do too much damage to his campaign during the debates, the one real piece of good news for Kerry is, accroding to the local state polls, is the fact that in states where Kerry's got a strong lead of at least 5%, he has 228 electoral votes. In states where Bush's lead is at least 5%, he has 183 electoral votes.

Florida / Ohio / Pennsylvania - all up for grabs.

Ok...really easy question...should we keep, modify, or get rid of the electorial college and go towards the popular vote.

And by "modify" I mean do what Colorado has proposed, and have it not be a "winner takes all," but rather each candidate receives a percentage of the electorial votes depending on how they finish in the state.

This message was edited by curtoid on 10-19-04 @ 9:24 AM

[GodsFavoriteMan]

I find it too difficult to respond to this because it would take a new amendment to the constitution and a 3/4 approval in congress. It just isn't going to happen.

Oh, and did you check out that new NJ poll? Holy shit, that can't be right. That's a major lead. Wasn't Bush there yesterday because some polls said it was a tossup?

<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~stan_ferguson/goodluvin_copy.jpg">

[A.J.]

get rid of the electorial college

I'm all for getting rid of the electorial college and replacing it with the electoral college. :)

<img src=http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/AJinDC-Sig.jpg>

A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.

Red Sox Nation

This message was edited by AJinDC on 10-19-04 @ 10:07 AM

[Yerdaddy]

Colorado has a proposal on the ballot to split our electoral votes according to the percentage of votes. Ie: if Bush gets 51% of the vote in CO he gets 5 of our 9 electoral votes. It would also be retroactive - meaning it would be effective this election.

The rationale is that the 49% or so of people who vote for the losing candidate just lose. This way their votes count. The drawback is that unless the whole country went to the same system then presidential candidates would only be competing in our state for one electoral vote - in other words maybe we'd catch a glimpse of the candidates' planes as they flew overhead to a state they cared about.

Campaign lawyers have already written their legal challenges, and it's just going to be a game of Slap-Jack to see who can get their lawsuits filed first should this thing pass.

I actually haven't made up my mind about this thing. I dont think it will pass anyway. But it is just a way to say "fuck you" to the electoral college.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

[NewYorkDragons80]

Colorado has a proposal on the ballot to split our electoral votes according to the percentage of votes. Ie: if Bush gets 51% of the vote in CO he gets 5 of our 9 electoral votes. It would also be retroactive - meaning it would be effective this election.
I'm all for getting rid of the "winner take all" aspect of elections, but it isn't fair that they would only do it in a red state. If they reform the electoral college, it must affect EVERY state and not just some.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

[silera]

I'd like a popular vote period. If it got eliminated at a Federal level, then each state wouldn't have to decide on it. However, each state feels a certain amount of power due to the college, and therefore it will never happen.

<center>http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/silerass.jpg
<font size="3" color="red">AND WHAT?</font></center><font color="FBF2F7">

[mdr55]

Why don't they eliminate the Vice president running mates. And among the candidates for president, who ever wins becomes president and the loser vice-president. That way the parties will be forced to work together and all this mud-slinging will decrease due to the fact that the 2 candidates will have to work together no matter what.

Hafa Adai.

[silera]

That's a profound thought.

But then, the vice president's supporters may kill the president so that they could get their guy in like the wanted all along.

Mayhem would surely ensue.


<center>http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/silerass.jpg
<font size="3" color="red">AND WHAT?</font></center><font color="FBF2F7">

This message was edited by silera on 10-19-04 @ 11:22 AM

[mdr55]

But then, the vice president's supporters may kill the president so that they could get their guy in like the wanted all along.

Mayhem would surely ensue.



This country was founded on Revolution, so it wouldn't be anything new.

Besides......all these politicians most likely belong to the same social groups. So what difference would it make? It's like the wrestlers in the WWE, in public they hate and kick each others asses but in the back their sharing brewskies.

Hafa Adai.

[A.J.]

Why don't they eliminate the Vice president running mates. And among the candidates for president, who ever wins becomes president and the loser vice-president. That way the parties will be forced to work together and all this mud-slinging will decrease due to the fact that the 2 candidates will have to work together no matter what.

Not necessarily. The Office of Vice President (with the the exception perhaps of LBJ, Mondale, Gore and Cheney) has been a relatively insigificant office. The only responsibilities a Veep has are casting tie-breaking votes in the Senate and having a pulse.

Besides, after such a heated campaign wouldn't the loser resent the victor (President) and the mediocre role he was about to assume? Vice Presidents are described in one term only: "loyal". Could a losing candidate be that loyal to his President?

I know that it is common for Governors and Lieutenant Governors to be from different parties but I'm not sure how each state constitution provides for their powers. Also, in those states, I believe Governors and Lt. Governors run separately.

<img src=http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/AJinDC-Sig.jpg>

A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.

Red Sox Nation

This message was edited by AJinDC on 10-19-04 @ 12:01 PM

[curtoid]

Right now there is no motivation for a Democrat in Kansas to even show up and vote, just as there is no reason for a Republican in Boston to cast their votes.

I think if they did a radical overhaul, across the board, voter turnout would go up everywhere.





http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/curtoid/22.jpg
"One of our normal friends." - RB

[Se7en]

As much as I would find it distasteful to see him win, it would almost be worth seeing Kerry win the electoral college and lose the popular election to Bush, just so I could witness some of you here backpedal like motherfuckers.

<center><img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/7_sig.gif" width="300" height="100">
<br>
<br>
Don't blame me....I voted for Kodos.
I look forward to an orderly election that will eliminate the need for a violent bloodbath. </center>

[A.J.]

Right now there is no motivation for a Democrat in Kansas to even show up and vote, just as there is no reason for a Republican in Boston to cast their votes.


When I lived in DC I always voted. And when Marion Barry became Mayor again, much to my disgust, I decided to "get over it" -- as he suggested to all the white citizens.

<img src=http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/AJinDC-Sig.jpg>

A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.

Red Sox Nation

[Yerdaddy]

I'm all for getting rid of the "winner take all" aspect of elections, but it isn't fair that they would only do it in a red state. If they reform the electoral college, it must affect EVERY state and not just some.

I agree. But I think part of the motivation for this is that laws controlling federal elections are still governed by the states, and they see this state-level pressure as the only way the Electoral College system will ever see reform. I think there are also a couple of smaller states that already have this proportional vote system already in place but I don't remember which ones.

I also see the same concearns about the unilateralism of this effort being the thing that makes it highly unlikely that it will pass. There are both republican and democratic organizations that have been created to oppose this initiative. They both seem motivated by an optimism that their candidate could win the state but lose part of the electoral votes to the split, as well as the other concearn I mentioned - losing the incentive for candidates to campaign here. If it does pass, and the election is close, we may become this year's Florida. But I doubt it.

it would almost be worth seeing Kerry win the electoral college and lose the popular election to Bush, just so I could witness some of you here backpedal like motherfuckers.
Not sure exactly who or what you're talking about but there's always the option of doing what you do when you're proved wrong, (which is usually), and just run and hide.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

[Yerdaddy]

And when Marion Barry became Mayor again, much to my disgust, I decided to "get over it"

...and thus began AJ's long love affair with crack and hookers.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

[A.J.]

And fashion!

http://www.theafrican.info/MayorBarry.jpg

<img src=http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/AJinDC-Sig.jpg>

A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.

Red Sox Nation

[Yerdaddy]

Damn I wish I looked that good when I was just woke up from a park bench!

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

[curtoid]

As much as I would find it distasteful to see him win, it would almost be worth seeing Kerry win the electoral college and lose the popular election to Bush, just so I could witness some of you here backpedal like motherfuckers.

Gee - this looks like something I wrote in response to something you wrote about six months ago, except to see how "grown up" the Republicans act?

Hmmmmm...

The problem with 2000, btw, was not the electoral college vs. popular.





http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/curtoid/22.jpg
"One of our normal friends." - RB

[mdr55]

If only I scored higher on the SAT's I could have gone to Electorial College. I hear they have a good debate team.

Hafa Adai.

[NewYorkDragons80]

I agree. But I think part of the motivation for this is that laws controlling federal elections are still governed by the states, and they see this state-level pressure as the only way the Electoral College system will ever see reform.
Yeah, but if they ever federally reform the electoral college to this system, it would have to be through a constitutional amendment anyway, so the state of Colorado's current proposed reform wouldn't be necessary anyway.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

[mdr55]

I'm for keeping the Electoral college so that small states and cities have a voice. If not you would see all the candidates going to only the big cities to get the votes because of the vast population.

Besides, Education is a good thing. Just ask Bush.

Hafa Adai.

[shamus mcfitzy]

I chose modify because it seems like a good idea to split the electoral votes if onyl to keep the system and essentially go to the popular vote. But the thing is it will still be based on percentages and where they split the vote. For example, SC has 8 electoral vote and electoral-vote.com has the election at 55%-42%, meaning Bush should get 4.4 votes. I guess you can round it to 5 because he won, but as the states get bigger the calls will be closer (coincidentally all the big states either don't have totals of 100% on the site or actually kinda fit like NY does with an 18-13 split, so I can't find a good example). This would probably come up just like the current debate has.

If the system did change I'd actually be more persuaded to just vote to give Kerry votes, taking away really my freedom to truly vote my conscience. That would probably quench a lot of the third party vote, so I say that's do it after a third party comes out in this country (so probably two days from never).

[TheMojoPin]

so I say that's do it after a third party comes out in this country (so probably two days from never).

Quitter!

They're really just two days 'til tomorrow!

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[shamus mcfitzy]

Why don't they eliminate the Vice president running mates. And among the candidates for president, who ever wins becomes president and the loser vice-president. That way the parties will be forced to work together and all this mud-slinging will decrease due to the fact that the 2 candidates will have to work together no matter what.


I don't know if you know this but the election system actually worked with the second place person getting the vice-presidency for the first three presidential elections. I think they actually made the 12th Ammendment because there was a problem with the system. That problem was that Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson got an electoral tie in the 1800 election. Then Congress voted and Jefferson won that vote and was declared the President and Burr the VP. Might be wrong with some of the facts but that's the gist of why that system failed.

And I think it was too bad it was in such an early election because the ideas you just proposed about it are pretty good ones and maybe even the vice-presidency could've been an important position in government.

8191 ESRUC EHT ESREVER

This message was edited by shamus mcfitzy on 10-22-04 @ 6:56 PM

[SatCam]

It should be gotten rid of. It works on the basis of a two party system and it creates no chance for third parties. Also, it favors different states in different ways (then again, I could get into how I think statehood ruins everything, but thats a discussion for another time.)

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/SatCam/sig89_general_snoopdog.jpg" align="right" alt="Nigguh pleeze" /><a href="http://www.satelitecam.tk">Ron and Fez Drops and Bits</a>

50%[color=white]