Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2012 8:55:53 GMT -5
Is it time for the USA to move away from the electoral vote system we currently use?
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Nov 1, 2012 10:15:32 GMT -5
I'd agree to it changing. There's no need for the electoral college. It's a waste of taxpayer money to be honest.
If we use the total vote for President, we'd be electing a person who represents the majority of those who voted.
The idea of each state holding sway over votes has created a chasm of misunderstanding and nothing more than a revenue source for the media.
I vote for change. If it ever ends up on our ballots, I'll jump right on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by nick20 on Nov 1, 2012 17:31:21 GMT -5
the ev was put in because the founders feared the 'unwashed' mob
while it is anachronistic, it also serves a purpose. there have beenm elections where the popular vorte winner did not win, and there were election where there were multiple candidaes where no one got a majority. there have 4 electiuoins where the popular vote winner did not win. 1824- 4 candidates jackson got the most popular and EV, but not a majority. adams won in the house. 1876. tilden wins the popular vote, but 20 EVS are disputed. Compromise of 1877 awards all 20 to Hayes who wins 185-184. this was the highest percentage turnbout in presidential huistory- 78% voted. cloest erv margin ever. 1888 cleveland wins popular votre by 100 thousand over benjamin harrison, but harrison wins the EV> 2000 Gore wins popular vore by 500K but loses florida by 500 votes to Bush.
i think obama incidently will win both the popular vote and ev.
|
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Nov 2, 2012 7:09:14 GMT -5
Leave it to libruls to endorse mob rule.  If you get rid of the electoral system, then candidates only visit highly populated areas which tends to be the coastal states silencing the voices of sane, midwestern values. However, this election will end with a tie with electoral votes kicking the election to the House of Representatives demonstrating to Obama that the use of the term "schlacking" in 2010 was an understatement and probably should have moved to the center instead of doubling down on the far left, TW and Nick. |
|
|
|
Post by TW on Nov 2, 2012 9:24:09 GMT -5
PC's point is well made, and it's true. It would change things.
It would also give large population areas much more sway in the election.
Yet, we don't need to have a President who is elected with less popular votes than the man he beat, do we?
|
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Nov 2, 2012 10:04:54 GMT -5
The only people that gripe about this system are typically the ones who don't understand how a President is elected in this country, mainly young, stupid, Gore supporting Libruls.
The system isn't perfect, but it is the most fair. If you don't like it, move to Russia.
And btw, Dork Vader could have won the 2000 election by the popular vote and electoral vote if he simply asked for a statewide recount, which he didn't. He thought he'd be sneaky and ask for only Democratically controlled counties; butthead.
|
|
|
|
Post by nick20 on Nov 2, 2012 19:30:10 GMT -5
the odds of it being a 269-269 tie are minimal. Obama leads in more than enough states to win, in fact he leads in every state he won in 2008, with the exception of indiana. that would get him to 347 ev, thanks to reapportionment after the 2010 census which moved 6 evs from blue states to red states. as for the popular vote i'm thinking he wins by 3-4 points, wqhich given our deeply divided electorate is not bad. there are some states that wouldnt go Dem if George Bush was the Republican nominee.Wyoming,. Utah and Mississippi
|
|
