CurlTalk

Poll: Should the U.S. get rid of the Electoral College?

SarcasmIsBeautySarcasmIsBeauty Posts: 5,640Registered Users
I think we should get rid of it and let the people actually choose who will be the leader.

Please share your thoughts on why we should or shouldn't get rid of this electoral college.
Turtles: omg please don't put that in your moo moo

Nej: too late... moo moo has been infiltrated.
Failed to load the poll.
Failed to load the poll.
«1

Comments

  • MimsTXMimsTX Posts: 3,482Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    VERY interesting topic... I'm really looking forward to seeing what people have to say.

    I had to put Maybe/undecided, simply because I think there are probably aspects of it that I don't fully understand, so I'm not sure how effective and neccesary it really is.
    CG/Mod CG (soap bars) since 8/12/08
    CO wash/Cond: Kathymack & Flowermoon Castille soap bars, V05 Chamomile Tea, Suave Ocean Breeze, Biolage Conditioning Balm
    Styling loves: DIFFUSING! CK, KCNT, KCCC, FOTE (on dry hair only), Re:coil, Proclaim gel
    Not sure about: Boots, Tweek, KBB Milk, DMHJ
    HATE: plopping, FOTE on wet hair, BRHG
  • geminigemini Posts: 3,325Registered Users
    I said yes. I understand the original purpose of it, but I don't think we need it anymore.
  • CurlyGina2CurlyGina2 Posts: 1,048Registered Users
    Yes. I want my vote to actually count as my vote.
  • AmandacurlsAmandacurls Posts: 6,252Registered Users
    I voted yes. If the vote were a true popular vote and candidates didn't win states and such, everyone would be equally represented. Everyone's vote would count just as much as anyone elses. But I also think we should do away with the candidates picking their own VP's. I'm more of a fan of the way old school way they did it where 2 (or however many) people ran for president and whoever got the most votes was president, and second highest was VP. Then competing interests are all represented and politicians would be forced to work together.
  • redcelticcurlsredcelticcurls Posts: 17,502Registered Users
    To quote some fellow cynics - they are from the Constitutional Convention of 1787- on why I still favor the Electoral College.

    Granted, these same issues can still be seen using the College, but I think keeping it helps even it out a bit.

    I cannot prove it, but I personally feel that a simple majority vote would benefirt Dems more than Pubs in Presidential elections as urban population centers on average tend to vote Dem more than Pub.
    [FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica]"A popular election in this case is radically vicious. The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union, and acting in concert, to delude them into any appointment." -- Delegate Gerry, July 25, 1787 [/FONT]
    [FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica]
    "The extent of the country renders it impossible, that the people can have the requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the candidates." -- Delegate Mason, July 17, 1787
    "The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men." -- Delegate Gerry, July 19, 1787
    [/FONT]
    Kiva! Microfinance works.

    Med/Coarse, porous curly.
  • redcelticcurlsredcelticcurls Posts: 17,502Registered Users
    I voted yes. If the vote were a true popular vote and candidates didn't win states and such, everyone would be equally represented. Everyone's vote would count just as much as anyone elses. But I also think we should do away with the candidates picking their own VP's. I'm more of a fan of the way old school way they did it where 2 (or however many) people ran for president and whoever got the most votes was president, and second highest was VP. Then competing interests are all represented and politicians would be forced to work together.

    I'm for that.
    Kiva! Microfinance works.

    Med/Coarse, porous curly.
  • MimsTXMimsTX Posts: 3,482Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    I voted yes. If the vote were a true popular vote and candidates didn't win states and such, everyone would be equally represented. Everyone's vote would count just as much as anyone elses. But I also think we should do away with the candidates picking their own VP's. I'm more of a fan of the way old school way they did it where 2 (or however many) people ran for president and whoever got the most votes was president, and second highest was VP. Then competing interests are all represented and politicians would be forced to work together.

    I'm for that.

    That would definitely help eliminate some of the bi-partisan hostilities that have gotten increasingly worse over the years...

    I wonder how much would actually be ACCOMPLISHED (you know there would massive amounts of internal scwabbling) but it really would help to have every person's vote be represented.
    CG/Mod CG (soap bars) since 8/12/08
    CO wash/Cond: Kathymack & Flowermoon Castille soap bars, V05 Chamomile Tea, Suave Ocean Breeze, Biolage Conditioning Balm
    Styling loves: DIFFUSING! CK, KCNT, KCCC, FOTE (on dry hair only), Re:coil, Proclaim gel
    Not sure about: Boots, Tweek, KBB Milk, DMHJ
    HATE: plopping, FOTE on wet hair, BRHG
  • AmandacurlsAmandacurls Posts: 6,252Registered Users
    MimsTX wrote: »
    I voted yes. If the vote were a true popular vote and candidates didn't win states and such, everyone would be equally represented. Everyone's vote would count just as much as anyone elses. But I also think we should do away with the candidates picking their own VP's. I'm more of a fan of the way old school way they did it where 2 (or however many) people ran for president and whoever got the most votes was president, and second highest was VP. Then competing interests are all represented and politicians would be forced to work together.

    I'm for that.

    That would definitely help eliminate some of the bi-partisan hostilities that have gotten increasingly worse over the years...

    I wonder how much would actually be ACCOMPLISHED (you know there would massive amounts of internal scwabbling) but it really would help to have every person's vote be represented.

    I know at first it'd be bumpy, but if they knew they had to give a little to get a little, it'd be great. Compromise would go a long way. I must say I'm very upset with government in it's current state, I don't think it's what the founding fathers had in mind AT ALL, but I'm optimistic that we can/could change it. We should definitely try to make it "by the people, for the people". Government SHOULD work for us, not against us or for themselves.
  • legendslegends Posts: 3,073Registered Users
    I'm undecided on the electoral college.

    About having the candidate with the second highest votes be VP, wouldn't we have to expand the power of the VP for it to make a difference? I think it might work if we had at least 3 candidates that all had a chance in hell of winning, but with only two people seriously running it just seems like a way to, at best, have a deadlocked government where nothing gets done (which might not be a bad thing, actually), or, at worst, increase the risk of assassinations.

    I do agree though that it's a bad idea for candidates to just pick a VP themselves. How about if whoever gets second place in the primaries become the automatic VP candidate?
    Eres o te haces?
  • MimsTXMimsTX Posts: 3,482Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    legends wrote: »
    I'm undecided on the electoral college.

    About having the candidate with the second highest votes be VP, wouldn't we have to expand the power of the VP for it to make a difference? I think it might work if we had at least 3 candidates that all had a chance in hell of winning, but with only two people seriously running it just seems like a way to, at best, have a deadlocked government where nothing gets done (which might not be a bad thing, actually), or, at worst, increase the risk of assassinations.

    I do agree though that it's a bad idea for candidates to just pick a VP themselves. How about if whoever gets second place in the primaries become the automatic VP candidate?

    If we did away with the electoral college, wouldn't that open up the field a little bit for a third party?

    As it's set up right now, even if a third party got a good number of the majority votes, they still probably couldn't even take 1 state, just because of the way things are set up. And if you can't even take 1 state, you're screwed with the system as it is right now...
    CG/Mod CG (soap bars) since 8/12/08
    CO wash/Cond: Kathymack & Flowermoon Castille soap bars, V05 Chamomile Tea, Suave Ocean Breeze, Biolage Conditioning Balm
    Styling loves: DIFFUSING! CK, KCNT, KCCC, FOTE (on dry hair only), Re:coil, Proclaim gel
    Not sure about: Boots, Tweek, KBB Milk, DMHJ
    HATE: plopping, FOTE on wet hair, BRHG
  • CottonCandyCurlsCottonCandyCurls Posts: 344Registered Users
    I voted no. The electoral college is a good federalist instrument, it ensures that whoever is elected has wide popular support that is distributed across the country in rural and urban areas. It also empowers the minority vote to not get swallowed up by the majority. There is a reason no one has been able to come up with a suitable alternative for two centuries. Give the founders some credit. Either way whether I think it should be preserved, the electoral college is not going anywhere. Constitutional amendments are rare and Congress has little incentive to actually pass it. Though legislation to abolish the electoral college has come up over 700 times.
  • CottonCandyCurlsCottonCandyCurls Posts: 344Registered Users
    MimsTX wrote: »
    legends wrote: »
    I'm undecided on the electoral college.

    About having the candidate with the second highest votes be VP, wouldn't we have to expand the power of the VP for it to make a difference? I think it might work if we had at least 3 candidates that all had a chance in hell of winning, but with only two people seriously running it just seems like a way to, at best, have a deadlocked government where nothing gets done (which might not be a bad thing, actually), or, at worst, increase the risk of assassinations.

    I do agree though that it's a bad idea for candidates to just pick a VP themselves. How about if whoever gets second place in the primaries become the automatic VP candidate?

    If we did away with the electoral college, wouldn't that open up the field a little bit for a third party?

    As it's set up right now, even if a third party got a good number of the majority votes, they still probably couldn't even take 1 state, just because of the way things are set up. And if you can't even take 1 state, you're screwed with the system as it is right now...

    It would open it up but not all third parties are desirable. I like the some of the uphill battles third parties have to climb because that means they need to build themselves bottom up and make a serious effort to address the whole country not just their niche.
  • legendslegends Posts: 3,073Registered Users
    Good points, Mims. Getting rid of the electoral college might help some, but I don't think the votes for other parties would amount to much except for maybe creating a bigger difference in votes between the republican and democratic candidates. It all comes down to money, and all but those two parties don't have enough to get their names out. I doubt any third party candidate could even get enough support to be allowed to participate in any of the debates. Ross Perot was the last one...when was the last time before him?
    Eres o te haces?
  • MimsTXMimsTX Posts: 3,482Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    I voted no. The electoral college is a good federalist instrument, it ensures that whoever is elected has wide popular support that is distributed across the country in rural and urban areas. It also empowers the minority vote to not get swallowed up by the majority. There is a reason no one has been able to come up with a suitable alternative for two centuries. Give the founders some credit. Either way whether I think it should be preserved, the electoral college is not going anywhere. Constitutional amendments are rare and Congress has little incentive to actually pass it. Though legislation to abolish the electoral college has come up over 700 times.

    this is one arguement i've never understood in regards to the electoral college. Maybe it's just never been explained correctly to me, but how does the fact that the majority vote of a state gives a certain number of 'points' to a candidate ensuring that the minority vote isn't swallowed?
    CG/Mod CG (soap bars) since 8/12/08
    CO wash/Cond: Kathymack & Flowermoon Castille soap bars, V05 Chamomile Tea, Suave Ocean Breeze, Biolage Conditioning Balm
    Styling loves: DIFFUSING! CK, KCNT, KCCC, FOTE (on dry hair only), Re:coil, Proclaim gel
    Not sure about: Boots, Tweek, KBB Milk, DMHJ
    HATE: plopping, FOTE on wet hair, BRHG
  • MimsTXMimsTX Posts: 3,482Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    legends wrote: »
    Good points, Mims. Getting rid of the electoral college might help some, but I don't think the votes for other parties would amount to much except for maybe creating a bigger difference in votes between the republican and democratic candidates. It all comes down to money, and all but those two parties don't have enough to get their names out. I doubt any third party candidate could even get enough support to be allowed to participate in any of the debates. Ross Perot was the last one...when was the last time before him?

    hmm... perhaps with some kind of limit established on the amount of cash that's spent on all of these campaigns? I know it's come up several times in conversations on these boards, about how much money is spent on these things... and is it really the best use of the cash?

    I don't know...I do agree that the 'third parties' are at a severe disadvantage... but that doesn't mean it can't EVER work.

    and no, cottoncandy, I don't think they're all desirable either. But doesn't it make sense that the MOST successful of any of them would be the ones that appeal to the broadest section of the country's population? I don't think you have to worry about a small niche group rising into power like that, even if it's based on a majority vote alone.
    CG/Mod CG (soap bars) since 8/12/08
    CO wash/Cond: Kathymack & Flowermoon Castille soap bars, V05 Chamomile Tea, Suave Ocean Breeze, Biolage Conditioning Balm
    Styling loves: DIFFUSING! CK, KCNT, KCCC, FOTE (on dry hair only), Re:coil, Proclaim gel
    Not sure about: Boots, Tweek, KBB Milk, DMHJ
    HATE: plopping, FOTE on wet hair, BRHG
  • CottonCandyCurlsCottonCandyCurls Posts: 344Registered Users
    MimsTX wrote: »
    I voted no. The electoral college is a good federalist instrument, it ensures that whoever is elected has wide popular support that is distributed across the country in rural and urban areas. It also empowers the minority vote to not get swallowed up by the majority. There is a reason no one has been able to come up with a suitable alternative for two centuries. Give the founders some credit. Either way whether I think it should be preserved, the electoral college is not going anywhere. Constitutional amendments are rare and Congress has little incentive to actually pass it. Though legislation to abolish the electoral college has come up over 700 times.

    this is one arguement i've never understood in regards to the electoral college. Maybe it's just never been explained correctly to me, but how does the fact that the majority vote of a state gives a certain number of 'points' to a candidate ensuring that the minority vote isn't swallowed?

    Okay well take this particular election. Blacks account for about ~13% of the population. One of Obama's strategies for turning some red states blue is to increase turnout of the black vote in Southern states like North Carolina, Virginia etc. Here a small minority can help edge out the opposition. If successful he would win all the electoral votes for that state. Which gives their vote more clout. In a direct election they would only account for 13%.

    Some people see this as unfair. I see it as making sure smaller groups are courted. Same strategy works for rural people. If it was a direct election, a candidate could ignore the small towns and states and solely campaign in big urban areas. That would be unfair, and would definitely favor democrats who are much more likely to live in high density areas.
  • lacunaCoilslacunaCoils Posts: 489Registered Users
    I voted yes. If the vote were a true popular vote and candidates didn't win states and such, everyone would be equally represented. Everyone's vote would count just as much as anyone elses. But I also think we should do away with the candidates picking their own VP's. I'm more of a fan of the way old school way they did it where 2 (or however many) people ran for president and whoever got the most votes was president, and second highest was VP. Then competing interests are all represented and politicians would be forced to work together.

    ITA!
    2b/2c Henndigo curls
    Currently using: Deva low-poo and OC, KCKT/KCCC, JCCC, & BRHG. + Curlease towel :)
    Also have had success with: CK, FSG, KBB, AOHR, Nature's Gate Conditioner.

    pw: curlygirl

    peacelove.jpg
  • RedCatWavesRedCatWaves Posts: 31,258Registered Users
    If you want the east and west coasts of the country to decide elections, then go ahead and get rid of the electoral college and go with popular vote. Since most liberals live on the coasts, including me, I'd be all for it.

    I do think the electoral college makes it impossible for any third party candidates to ever get a fair chance, but I have no clue how to fix it. Apparently no one else does either.
  • CottonCandyCurlsCottonCandyCurls Posts: 344Registered Users
    If you want the east and west coasts of the country to decide elections, then go ahead and get rid of the electoral college and go with popular vote. Since most liberals live on the coasts, including me, I'd be all for it.

    I do think the electoral college makes it impossible for any third party candidates to ever get a fair chance, but I have no clue how to fix it. Apparently no one else does either.

    Since we don't officially have a national election but 51 state elections, each state can decide to change from winner-take-all to a proportional allocation. Nebraska and Maine have their own system. Each state could do as they see fit, and it wouldn't require a change to the constitution. But again, what incentive do they have to change it? The two parties in power do not give a flip about increasing competition.
  • geminigemini Posts: 3,325Registered Users
    If you want the east and west coasts of the country to decide elections, then go ahead and get rid of the electoral college and go with popular vote. Since most liberals live on the coasts, including me, I'd be all for it.

    I do think the electoral college makes it impossible for any third party candidates to ever get a fair chance, but I have no clue how to fix it. Apparently no one else does either.


    I wonder if there could be a way to balance electoral votes with popular votes--maybe have a point system where the total popular vote counts for 50% of the total "points" needed to win and the state electoral college totals account for the other 50%?

    I agree with Amanda that the VP should receive votes too. I know some states have governor and Lt. governor elected separately--how well does that system work in reality?
  • CottonCandyCurlsCottonCandyCurls Posts: 344Registered Users
    gemini wrote: »
    If you want the east and west coasts of the country to decide elections, then go ahead and get rid of the electoral college and go with popular vote. Since most liberals live on the coasts, including me, I'd be all for it.

    I do think the electoral college makes it impossible for any third party candidates to ever get a fair chance, but I have no clue how to fix it. Apparently no one else does either.


    I wonder if there could be a way to balance electoral votes with popular votes--maybe have a point system where the total popular vote counts for 50% of the total "points" and the state electoral college totals account for the other 50?

    I agree with Amanda that the VP should receive votes too. I know some states have governor and Lt. governor elected separately--how well does that system work in reality?

    electoral votes are based on the popular vote. You would have to change allocation from winner-take-all to something else. The VP idea is just not practical. That rule existed in the old days before they really even had political parties.

    Everyone is welcome to read Hamilton in the Federalist Papers No. 68. on why we need the Electoral College.
    /home/leaving?target=http%3A%2F%2Fthomas.loc.gov%2Fhome%2Fhistdox%2Ffed_68.html" class="Popup
  • KookyCurlKookyCurl Posts: 1,980Registered Users
    Another argument against abolishing the Electoral College.

    Popular vote only elections can lead to more contested elections and drag out the election process. I do however thing the process can be much more refined at a state level. I live in Maine and I like our system. We have 4 electoral votes. Whoever wins the state gets two of them. The other two are divided between our congressional districts. So these could be split. It gives a voice to our much more rural northern district and makes sure candidates give our small state some attention.

    It is a voting system that reflects our governmental system. We are a republic of states. It makes sense that those states choose who governs them. In a sense we choose how our state votes, the state then casts it's votes for president.
  • geminigemini Posts: 3,325Registered Users
    gemini wrote: »
    If you want the east and west coasts of the country to decide elections, then go ahead and get rid of the electoral college and go with popular vote. Since most liberals live on the coasts, including me, I'd be all for it.

    I do think the electoral college makes it impossible for any third party candidates to ever get a fair chance, but I have no clue how to fix it. Apparently no one else does either.


    I wonder if there could be a way to balance electoral votes with popular votes--maybe have a point system where the total popular vote counts for 50% of the total "points" and the state electoral college totals account for the other 50?

    I agree with Amanda that the VP should receive votes too. I know some states have governor and Lt. governor elected separately--how well does that system work in reality?

    electoral votes are based on the popular vote. You would have to change allocation from winner-take-all to something else. The VP idea is just not practical. That rule existed in the old days before they really even had political parties.

    Everyone is welcome to read Hamilton in the Federalist Papers No. 68. on why we need the Electoral College.
    /home/leaving?target=http%3A%2F%2Fthomas.loc.gov%2Fhome%2Fhistdox%2Ffed_68.html" class="Popup


    No kidding? ;)

    I meant the points/delegates gained from the electoral college (by state) count towards the election as well as the overall national total of votes for each candidate. That way you have state delegate counts weighing in as well as the total (population's) overall votes on a national level.

    I really like the idea of dividing the delegates by percentage vs. winner take all. That makes more sense as well.
  • redcelticcurlsredcelticcurls Posts: 17,502Registered Users
    MimsTX wrote: »
    I voted no. The electoral college is a good federalist instrument, it ensures that whoever is elected has wide popular support that is distributed across the country in rural and urban areas. It also empowers the minority vote to not get swallowed up by the majority. There is a reason no one has been able to come up with a suitable alternative for two centuries. Give the founders some credit. Either way whether I think it should be preserved, the electoral college is not going anywhere. Constitutional amendments are rare and Congress has little incentive to actually pass it. Though legislation to abolish the electoral college has come up over 700 times.

    this is one arguement i've never understood in regards to the electoral college. Maybe it's just never been explained correctly to me, but how does the fact that the majority vote of a state gives a certain number of 'points' to a candidate ensuring that the minority vote isn't swallowed?

    Okay well take this particular election. Blacks account for about ~13% of the population. One of Obama's strategies for turning some red states blue is to increase turnout of the black vote in Southern states like North Carolina, Virginia etc. Here a small minority can help edge out the opposition. If successful he would win all the electoral votes for that state. Which gives their vote more clout. In a direct election they would only account for 13%.

    Some people see this as unfair. I see it as making sure smaller groups are courted. Same strategy works for rural people. If it was a direct election, a candidate could ignore the small towns and states and solely campaign in big urban areas. That would be unfair, and would definitely favor democrats who are much more likely to live in high density areas.

    I do agree with that, and I touched upon it in an earlier post. While I live in PA, I have a military affiliation and still maintain my votership in WV. Candidates rarely come to WV as it is, but they would never show up if we didn't have the Electoral College.
    Kiva! Microfinance works.

    Med/Coarse, porous curly.
  • WurlyLoxWurlyLox Posts: 4,858Registered Users
    I voted yes. If the vote were a true popular vote and candidates didn't win states and such, everyone would be equally represented. Everyone's vote would count just as much as anyone elses. But I also think we should do away with the candidates picking their own VP's. I'm more of a fan of the way old school way they did it where 2 (or however many) people ran for president and whoever got the most votes was president, and second highest was VP. Then competing interests are all represented and politicians would be forced to work together.

    I'm for that.

    I voted for the electoral college - it's a part of the whole checks and balances system. Remember your high school government classes? However, I think I'd be for the second highest vote getter being VP - seems to me that'd be yet another check and balance.
    2C/3A/3B - modified CG - fairly fine now, normal/low porosity/normal elasticity

    Current Main Rotation: MG217 medicated or Aim2Health 'poos for scalp, Elucence cond., Spiral Solutions Protein & Deeply Decadent Cond., CJCCCC reg or lite,CJ Pattern Pusha,, Giovanni LA Hold Hair Spritz + lots more, sporadically

    HG Method: Super Soaker + Smasters-ing, brief upside down diffusing w/360o diffuser then clips/clamps & air dry. Newly gray - stopped my henna glosses!

    www.fotki.com/auntnett
  • tctc Posts: 986Registered Users
    Yes, it should be abolished, so that each person's vote carries equal weight.
  • tctc Posts: 986Registered Users
    I voted for the electoral college - it's a part of the whole checks and balances system.

    Why do you think the electoral college contributes to checks & balances?

    I always saw it as a way of making some people's votes count more than others. If you live in a swing state, your vote makes a difference. If you live in a red or blue state, your vote is not likely to make a difference at all.
  • tctc Posts: 986Registered Users
    KookyCurl wrote: »
    Popular vote only elections can lead to more contested elections and drag out the election process.

    Sorry, I'm confused. Are you saying that the electoral college makes it easier for states to count their votes? And it would somehow be more difficult for states to count their votes if we didn't have the electoral college?

    We already count each individual vote before adding up the electoral college votes. The electoral college (or at least the modern version of it that we use) is just a different way of adding up the total once you have the individual votes counted. Elections without the electoral college would not be any more difficult or drawn-out or more contested than they already are.
  • tctc Posts: 986Registered Users
    Everyone is welcome to read Hamilton in the Federalist Papers No. 68. on why we need the Electoral College.

    Oh, and that Federalist paper was written at a time when information and candidates travelled extremely slowly. So it was just not practical for the average person to have enough information to make a decision about who to elect. That's why they elected people to choose for them. Now, we have instantaneous transfer of information and air travel that allows candidates to visit the American people in person. The original need for the electoral college no longer exists.

    Sigh, I might as well stop now. It seems like those in favor of the electoral college are just not making sense or haven't thought it through completely.
  • tctc Posts: 986Registered Users
    If you want the east and west coasts of the country to decide elections, then go ahead and get rid of the electoral college and go with popular vote.

    Sorry, I have to respond to this one too. The vast majority of the population lives near the coasts. If each person's vote counts equally then of course some "regions" would count more than others - not because there are more liberals there but because there are more humans there, and thus, more votes.

    Which would you rather have - your vote counting the same as someone else's? Or would you rather have your vote count less than someone else's so that your "regions" can count the same and you have the bad luck to live in a region with more people in it?

    Personally, I am in favor of one vote per person and each person's vote counting exactly the same as everyone else's. I haven't heard any legitimate or sensible arguments in favor of using the electoral college in modern times.

    I will stop for real now or this thread is going to drive me nuts. :)
«1

Leave a Comment