Group Pushes Electoral College Reform

[WanderAimlessly]

They just cannot let it go:

Group Pushes Electoral College Reform

A group called FairVote has launched a campaign to reform the Electoral College system, saying presidential election results should rely on the nationwide popular vote rather than the outcome in a handful of swing states.

The group’s plan would also eliminate the possibility of a candidate winning the popular vote but losing the election.

In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote by about 500,000 ballots, but lost the election in the Electoral College after George Bush narrowly won the popular vote in Florida and all of its 25 electoral votes.

Full Stoty Face it. Gore lost fair, square, legal, and Constitutionally.

PF

 

[mary_bobo]

Only people who do not understand the purpose of the electoral college would suggest a popular vote. Not getting who you want for president does not justify changing the system.

 

[MikeWM]

Face it. Gore lost fair, square, legal, and Constitutionally.

The latter two perhaps, though not the first two.

That apart, I think this is a good idea. At the least, it would force Presedential candidates to fight for every vote rather than concentrate on the battleground states. People would get back a feeling that their votes counted.

And I do understand the purpose of the college. In the late 18th century I can see it was a good system. But it’s not then anymore.

Mike

 

[Geldain]

mary bobo:

Only people who do not understand the purpose of the electoral college would suggest a popular vote. Not getting who you want for president does not justify changing the system.

Or people who realize they’re much less likely to win another Presidential election because of the electoral college for a long long time are for such a notion.

 

[WanderAimlessly]

How much do you want to bet they will onlly push this in the Red State and not the Blue State. It is only fare if their candidate wins all the votes. If not, split them. That is the only way they will win.

PF

 

[Geldain]

MikeWM:

The latter two perhaps, though not the first two.

This is a factual inaccuracy. There have been numerous recounts of the 2000 election ballots in Flordia. Bush has won them all.

That apart, I think this is a good idea. At the least, it would force Presedential candidates to fight for every vote rather than concentrate on the battleground states. People would get back a feeling that their votes counted.

To my knowledge, the only people in America who feel their vote didn’t count are A)the people who didn’t vote and B)the people who’s candidate lost.

The founding fathers of our nation were wise to institute the electoral college. Present day America will be wise to leave it alone.

 

[MikeWM]

Geldain:

This is a factual inaccuracy. There have been numerous recounts of the 2000 election ballots in Flordia. Bush has won them all.

This isn’t actually true (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_2000 for a summary), and apart from that fact, there was never an ‘official’ recount of the ballot, which was my point. Frankly we still don’t know if Bush or Gore would have won Florida if all the votes were counted (not to mention if everyone who should have been allowed to vote was allowed to vote, though in that case I think we all know Gore would have won).

To my knowledge, the only people in America who feel their vote didn’t count are A)the people who didn’t vote and B)the people who’s candidate lost.

That’s about 75% of people - quite a disenfranchisement. Maybe some of the 50% who don’t vote at all would bother if they thought every vote counted? Right now, if you live in a ‘safe’ state, your vote isn’t all that important, and you’re basically ignored by the candidates.

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

Geldain:

Or people who realize they’re much less likely to win another Presidential election because of the electoral college for a long long time are for such a notion.

I’ve no idea where you get this idea from. There were credible outcomes of the 2004 election that had Bush losing to Kerry despite having got more votes - if 100,000 votes in Ohio had gone the other way, for example, Kerry would have won despite Bush having three million more votes. This isn’t a partisan issue.

Mike

 

[Geldain]

MikeWM:

This isn’t actually true (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_2000 for a summary), and apart from that fact, there was never an ‘official’ recount of the ballot, which was my point.

I’m not going to rehash the 2000 election all over again. However I will make a few comments A)Wikipedia is not a valid source of information. I do not recognize it and will not waste my time looking at any links from there. B) there were 2 official recounts by the state of Florida.

Frankly we still don’t know if Bush or Gore would have won Florida if all the votes were counted (not to mention if everyone who should have been allowed to vote was allowed to vote, though in that case I think we all know Gore would have won).

This is a canard. Everyone who wanted to vote had the opportunity to do so. The votes cast were counted. Bush won. Gore lost. End of story…except for those who, from where I sit, are unable to accept the reality.

That’s about 75% of people - quite a disenfranchisement. Maybe some of the 50% who don’t vote at all would bother if they thought every vote counted? Right now, if you live in a ‘safe’ state, your vote isn’t all that important, and you’re basically ignored by the candidates.

Mike

Respectfully, this is as nonsensical a commentary as I have read in a while. When you don’t vote you’re not disenfranchised. You’ve removed yourself from participating in the system by your own choice. That’s not disenfranchisement…it’s being lazy or selfish, from where I sit.

Back to the thread topic:Keep the Elctorial College. It works as designed.

 

[MikeWM]

Geldain:

I’m not going to rehash the 2000 election all over again. However I will make a few comments A)Wikipedia is not a valid source of information. I do not recognize it and will not waste my time looking at any links from there. B) there were 2 official recounts by the state of Florida.

I’m not going to rehash the 2000 election all over again either - but I didn’t start it by making incorrect statements

a) Wikipedia is perfectly valid if referring to other sources of information. I’m not going to get into a deep philosophical debate about what we can know, but the fact is that some unofficial recounts gave Gore the victory in Florida. Others didn’t.

b) Yes, but not with any confidence. Frankly, your voting apparatus stinks. Machine recounts show very little - except how inaccurate the machines are in the first place.

This is a canard. Everyone who wanted to vote had the opportunity to do so.

You know as well as I do that many people were disenfranchised as felons when they weren’t.

guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,439226,00.html

for example.

The votes cast were counted.

Bar the ones the Supreme Court said that counting would cause damage to the impression that Bush had won (to paraphrase Scalia)

Bush won. Gore lost. End of story…except for those who, from where I sit, are unable to accept the reality.

It is reality. Was it what happened? Yes. Was it fair? No.

Respectfully, this is as nonsensical a commentary as I have read in a while. When you don’t vote you’re not disenfranchised. You’ve removed yourself from participating in the system by your own choice. That’s not disenfranchisement…it’s being lazy or selfish, from where I sit.

In part I agree - I always vote, whether the result is a foregone conclusion or not. I do think you are likely to get people interested in what are currently ‘safe states’ if everything is in play. Right now, their votes don’t matter that much, no-one spends any effort trying to woo them, and they know it.

Back to the thread topic:Keep the Elctorial College. It works as designed.

Yes, it does work as designed Perhaps it is nevertheless time to design something new.

Mike

 

[Digitonomy]

WanderAimlessly:

They just cannot let it go: Face it. Gore lost fair, square, legal, and Constitutionally.F

I didn’t see in the article where anyone claimed Gore didn’t lose.

As for the actual issue that the article discusses, I don’t think it’s a good idea to get rid of the Electoral College. In 2000 there were I think only three states where there was some controversy about who won. In 2004 there was only one. All legal efforts and related chaos were focussed in those limited areas, and once a judicial conclusion was reached in each state, the story was over.

On the other hand, if the winner were based on the popular vote, a thin margin of victory of say half a million could lead to scrambles by both parties to recount votes in numerous cities and states where there was evidence, however shaky, that their candidate hadn’t received a fair result in the count.

Having said that, I wouldn’t be opposed to dividing up each state’s electors by Congressional district, such as Nebraska and Maine do.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The purpose of our Electoral College is to insure that our federal system remains federal, and doesn’t become dominated by the high-population areas.

There is an interesting map put out by a pro-life group – it shows that the total number of children legally aborted since Roe vs Wade – about 47 million – equal the population of 17 states (the entire middle of the nation, from the Gulf to Canada, minus Texas.)

That map also shows why we need the Electoral College – 1/3 of the states have only 1/6 of the population. In a straight popular vote system, they’d be homoginized out of existance.

 

[jman507]

If we didn’t have the Electoral College good chance we might not have ratified the constitiution.

 

[Digitonomy]

jman507:

If we didn’t have the Electoral College good chance we might not have ratified the constitiution.

Can you provide a cite? I’m not aware that the Electoral College was much of a sticking point in the drafting of the Constitution.

 

[gilliam]

Commenting on his experience as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Wilson of Pennsylvania said: “The subject of presidential selection has greatly divided the House, and will also divide people out of doors. It is in truth the most difficult of all on which we have had to decide.” So intense was the debate over presidential selection that Max Ferrand, in his account of the Constitutional Convention, wrote that all other issues “paled into insignificance in comparison with the problem before the Convention in determining a satisfactory method of electing the executive.”

usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/politics/eleccol/katz.htm

 

[vern_humphrey]

gilliam:

Commenting on his experience as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Wilson of Pennsylvania said: “The subject of presidential selection has greatly divided the House, and will also divide people out of doors. It is in truth the most difficult of all on which we have had to decide.” So intense was the debate over presidential selection that Max Ferrand, in his account of the Constitutional Convention, wrote that all other issues “paled into insignificance in comparison with the problem before the Convention in determining a satisfactory method of electing the executive.”

usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/politics/eleccol/katz.htm

It is difficult to imagine that anyone with a sense of American history could dispute the importance of the Electoral College in forging the consensus that allowed for ratification of the Constitition. It is equally difficult to imagine anyone with a sense of American political institutions failing to understand the role the Electoral College plays in the Federal System.

 

[Geldain]

vern humphrey:

It is difficult to imagine that anyone with a sense of American history could dispute the importance of the Electoral College in forging the consensus that allowed for ratification of the Constitition. It is equally difficult to imagine anyone with a sense of American political institutions failing to understand the role the Electoral College plays in the Federal System.

You are 100% correct!

 

[gilliam]

vern humphrey:

It is difficult to imagine that anyone with a sense of American history could dispute the importance of the Electoral College in forging the consensus that allowed for ratification of the Constitition. It is equally difficult to imagine anyone with a sense of American political institutions failing to understand the role the Electoral College plays in the Federal System.

Vern,
I don’t think that is fair. No one knows everything except God. Instead of insulting them, you should be edifying them in a polite way.

 

[vern_humphrey]

gilliam:

Vern,
I don’t think that is fair. No one knows everything except God. Instead of insulting them, you should be edifying them in a polite way.

If you read some of the posts here, it would appear some of those attacking the Electoral College seem to think that they do know everything.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[jman507]

Its simple really. The states where much stronger before the constitiution. Some wanted a stronger sytem nationally, because it allows a lot more effeciency. You can have a more solid front when dealing with other nations, things such as that. But of course that would mean that the bigger populated areas & states would have a lot more influence than the smaller populated areas & states. SO the big states had to make it worth their while by making some compromises. So in the legislative branch you have the way they set up the House and the Senate & in the executive branch you have the Electoral College.