A quick note on the electorial college. It's not stupid. It's actually pretty smart considering the time it was put into affect. So says my high-school history classes, anyway.
Back in the early days, we didn't have these new fangled satillites and instant communication. We couldn't see the civil war being fought with a bag of potato chips in our lap from our comfy chairs at home, and we damn sure couldn't see the full story on what presidential candidates had to say. The average citizen was basically politically ignorant. While we're pretty sure this situation has changed (we hope, anyway), those technologies simply didn't exist.
So do you trust the election to the popular vote, where ill-educated people are voting at pretty much random? Or do you create a few educated people who stick around washington, listen to all the issues from all sides, AND to what the folks back home are saying? The choice is fairly obvious. Enter the electorial college.
It's a relic from simpler times, to be sure, and people keep fortelling it's downfall. But unfortunatly, until the people of the United States really get serious and understand that they don't need it anymore, it'll stick around. And around...
Not hardly. The number of electorial votes per state is determined by that state's population. I think my state has three, while California, by contrast, has nearly 20 or more, I think.
Each state has at least 2, one for each senator. The rest are by population.
ZunniThe best thing to happen to I&S in a long whileJoin Date: 2002-11-26Member: 10016Members
Correct, I was listening to that on the radio this morning.. People think the electoral college allows representation for smaller states, but really the larger states are still what determines the winner.
In Canada we use the per-vote system in determining our Prime Minister and it seems to serve us quite well.
I have high hopes for the hack the vote campaigns.
i see it as the only way half the country wont be **** off. At least then the country might be united about something. of course, as a bunch of geeks that might not be such a good thing for us as a group.
as a left wing liberal hippie commie pansy i hope kerry wins.
we can use the redskins game.
Also, the cashier at the grocery store told me that bushes planets are in eclipse while kerry's are in alignment. we all know that is clearly going to come into play <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> the scary part is that i am not lying about this at all. i had this converation while buying milk at the store down the block.
<!--QuoteBegin-rob6264+Nov 1 2004, 03:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (rob6264 @ Nov 1 2004, 03:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Not hardly. The number of electorial votes per state is determined by that state's population. I think my state has three, while California, by contrast, has nearly 20 or more, I think.
Each state has at least 2, one for each senator. The rest are by population. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> California has 55
Every state is guarenteed 2 votes.
So while california has 35 million people, NH, which has 4 votes has 1 million people.
Using proportionate math to solve this problem and keep things equal, NH should should only get about 1.5 votes.
HOWEVER, NH in reality gets 4. This is one of the many reasons why NH is such a deciding factor in elections, not to mention that NH is the first of primarys and stuff. <3 NH
Small states get a small but effecitve boost when determing electorial votes, whereas large states actually get HINDERED by the electorial system.
For example, to get 1 electorial vote per 500,000 people would mean that California would get <b>70</b> electorial votes and NH would get 2.
Start contrast when you compare one of the smaller states in proportion to the largest, eh?
OH and btw, smaller states = smaller in population. The truth is the "small" states make up most of the nation in land mass.
While Gore won 500,000 more votes than Bush did, Bush won close to 80% of the land in the US.
There is a nice and delicate balance between people who own land and those who do not. The electoral system is pretty much perfect at representing all the interests of the voters and it's a shame people are too stupid to realize how it serves them.
I don't care if they electoral system gives smaller states more say (acutally I do, I don't like the idea that most of the nation can want one president and still end up with somebody else, but it isn't as important as my other point), I care that my vote doesn't freaking count. As was said before, most states distribute their votes as though every voter in the state voted for the same person, when it reality it could have been as low as 50.0001%. So if you're one of the people who make up the other 49.9999%, your vote is wasted, it counts for less than nothing. This also helps enforece the two party system: Why vote for $THIRDPARTY when your vote will just be tossed out anyway? Better cast your vote for $LESSEREVIL or $GREATEREVIL might win the state! This is why I wasn't even going to bother voting, because it would just be a waste of time.
<!--QuoteBegin-RuBy+Oct 31 2004, 01:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (RuBy @ Oct 31 2004, 01:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Bush
I really really hope Kerry wins, but the only way that could happen is if more than 50% of the people actually get out and vote. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, I think in 2000 about 49% of eligible voters voted. I think that if every eligible voter voted, Kerry would win, but that's not gonna happen. Problem is, is that it seems like most Bush supporters are slightly fanatical.
Your vote does count. It is part of the state's assignment of their electoral votes. Just because your vote doesn't go straight from you to Kerry/Bush/Nader/Badnarik doesn't mean your vote is worthless.
Keep in mind that there's usually more to vote for than just a presidential candidate.
But I do think that the electoral system is better than a straight popular vote. Going with a straight popular vote would make New York, California and Florida even more important than they already are. If it were a straight popular vote, the presidency would be determined solely by urban population centers while most of the North East and Mid-West get ignored. New York City has more people than Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont combined. Forlorn already explained the math of the EC, so I won't do it again. Suffice to say, I enjoy the disproportionate power smaller states have.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Problem is, is that it seems like most Bush supporters are slightly fanatical.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I actually think that Dems have the advantage this year. There's a lot of people from groups that have traditionally low turnout geared up to kick Bush out of office. Republicans are certainly going balls to the wall trying to get the vote out, but I think that the Dems have been more successful registering and mobilizing new voters.
<!--QuoteBegin-Zunni+Nov 1 2004, 04:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Zunni @ Nov 1 2004, 04:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Correct, I was listening to that on the radio this morning.. People think the electoral college allows representation for smaller states, but really the larger states are still what determines the winner.
In Canada we use the per-vote system in determining our Prime Minister and it seems to serve us quite well. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Our system works similarly to the states, the major differnence is that every region elects a voting member of parliment, rather than all the elected members from one alignment in a state representing all that state's regions.
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Nov 1 2004, 07:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Nov 1 2004, 07:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't care if they electoral system gives smaller states more say (acutally I do, I don't like the idea that most of the nation can want one president and still end up with somebody else, but it isn't as important as my other point), I care that my vote doesn't freaking count. As was said before, most states distribute their votes as though every voter in the state voted for the same person, when it reality it could have been as low as 50.0001%. So if you're one of the people who make up the other 49.9999%, your vote is wasted, it counts for less than nothing. This also helps enforece the two party system: Why vote for $THIRDPARTY when your vote will just be tossed out anyway? Better cast your vote for $LESSEREVIL or $GREATEREVIL might win the state! This is why I wasn't even going to bother voting, because it would just be a waste of time. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You fix that not by changing the voting system, but by making approval voting.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Nov 1 2004, 11:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Nov 1 2004, 11:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Nov 1 2004, 07:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Nov 1 2004, 07:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't care if they electoral system gives smaller states more say (acutally I do, I don't like the idea that most of the nation can want one president and still end up with somebody else, but it isn't as important as my other point), I care that my vote doesn't freaking count. As was said before, most states distribute their votes as though every voter in the state voted for the same person, when it reality it could have been as low as 50.0001%. So if you're one of the people who make up the other 49.9999%, your vote is wasted, it counts for less than nothing. This also helps enforece the two party system: Why vote for $THIRDPARTY when your vote will just be tossed out anyway? Better cast your vote for $LESSEREVIL or $GREATEREVIL might win the state! This is why I wasn't even going to bother voting, because it would just be a waste of time. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You fix that not by changing the voting system, but by making approval voting. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> ...which would be changing the system no?
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Nov 1 2004, 11:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Nov 1 2004, 11:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Nov 1 2004, 11:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Nov 1 2004, 11:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Nov 1 2004, 07:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Nov 1 2004, 07:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't care if they electoral system gives smaller states more say (acutally I do, I don't like the idea that most of the nation can want one president and still end up with somebody else, but it isn't as important as my other point), I care that my vote doesn't freaking count. As was said before, most states distribute their votes as though every voter in the state voted for the same person, when it reality it could have been as low as 50.0001%. So if you're one of the people who make up the other 49.9999%, your vote is wasted, it counts for less than nothing. This also helps enforece the two party system: Why vote for $THIRDPARTY when your vote will just be tossed out anyway? Better cast your vote for $LESSEREVIL or $GREATEREVIL might win the state! This is why I wasn't even going to bother voting, because it would just be a waste of time. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You fix that not by changing the <b>electorial</b> voting system, but by making approval voting. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> ...which would be changing the system no? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> lol I meant
Getting back on topic, I call this election for <b>Bush</b>, by a surprising margin. Even though, personally, I'd vote for <b>Kerry</b> if I could. If I could. Mayhaps I should try white-outing the age field on my birth certificate.
<!--QuoteBegin-Zel+Nov 2 2004, 09:54 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Zel @ Nov 2 2004, 09:54 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Whats the problem with giving new york and california more power? they do have more people, and if everyone were equal.... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The problem is that california and new york have no idea what Iowa needs, and in order for new york and california to eat, they need iowans to be able to live and produce food. At the same time, new york and california (as a populous of people) are too short sited to see this, and will vote for their own betterment - at the expense of Iowa.
To vehemently bash 2 party system is a sign of ignorance of our electoral system. Yes our system is set up for that but it is foolish to say a Democrat from San Francisco is the same type of democrat from the south. Let me explain.
The two parties are also know as "catch alls" (both in people and ideology), therefore having, in essence a party within a party (almost impossible in Brittan. If your labor, you must vote party lines! Party whips have more sway in parliamentary systems). For example, in the republican party, you have one small segment that wants to ban immigrants/ foreign trade (enter pat Buchanan to represent this demographic) and a larger segment that embrace trade/immigrants (enter john McCain that represents this demographic) So, if you don’t like the 2 candidates, decide which side you lean, join the party and participate in the primary election. You have 9 candidates to choose from in the primary election then 2 in the presidential election. The only people I see that are screwed with our two party system are Left/Right wing fanatics (i.e. Extreme nationalist, Socialist, communist, KKK etc) and those that are dead center (Libertarians are commonly identified as centrist, but traditionally lean republican).
If Nader is really serious about being the president, he would join the democratic party, represent the far left of the dems and participate in the primary election. Instead, he flouts his ego, runs around spouting "Corporate conspiracy theories" and bashes our electoral system using it as an excuse why no one votes for him.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The problem is that california and new york have no idea what Iowa needs, and in order for new york and california to eat, they need iowans to be able to live and produce food. At the same time, new york and california (as a populous of people) are too short sited to see this, and will vote for their own betterment - at the expense of Iowa.
The electoral college attempts to even this out. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well put muffassa. I had a discussion about this with in my US government and politics class. People who live in the heartland produce alot of essential goods that are the foundation of our industrialized economy (i.e. Our food). It would be futile to assume that people in New York, San Fransisco and LA would take their needs into consideration when voting..
While i do suport the mantainence of the electorial college, I do support the idea of splitting electorial votes. It mantains the influence of small states (preventing politicians pampering small segments of the country) while giving republicans/dems who live in red/blue states more influence in the election.
Oh and about my prediction. I can say with utmost certanty that Ralph Nader will not win the election.. Your better off flipping a coin who will win between bush and kerry.
for Bush <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A bit optimistic there eh? All I can say for certian is that Ralph Nader will lose by 538 Electorial votes <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Ill put money on it if anyone wants to challange that prediction <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+Nov 2 2004, 10:43 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Nov 2 2004, 10:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The electoral college exists because the president is not the representative of the majority but the representative of the states. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You mean like the senate?
<!--QuoteBegin-taboofires+Nov 3 2004, 02:25 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (taboofires @ Nov 3 2004, 02:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+Nov 2 2004, 10:43 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Nov 2 2004, 10:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The electoral college exists because the president is not the representative of the majority but the representative of the states. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You mean like the senate? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The senate used to be a representative of the states until the constitution was amended to change the manner in which they are elected.
Comments
Back in the early days, we didn't have these new fangled satillites and instant communication. We couldn't see the civil war being fought with a bag of potato chips in our lap from our comfy chairs at home, and we damn sure couldn't see the full story on what presidential candidates had to say. The average citizen was basically politically ignorant. While we're pretty sure this situation has changed (we hope, anyway), those technologies simply didn't exist.
So do you trust the election to the popular vote, where ill-educated people are voting at pretty much random? Or do you create a few educated people who stick around washington, listen to all the issues from all sides, AND to what the folks back home are saying? The choice is fairly obvious. Enter the electorial college.
It's a relic from simpler times, to be sure, and people keep fortelling it's downfall. But unfortunatly, until the people of the United States really get serious and understand that they don't need it anymore, it'll stick around. And around...
Each state has at least 2, one for each senator. The rest are by population.
In Canada we use the per-vote system in determining our Prime Minister and it seems to serve us quite well.
See.. in England, theres more coverage of the Kerry movement than the Bush movement..
Bloody BBC!
i see it as the only way half the country wont be **** off. At least then the country might be united about something. of course, as a bunch of geeks that might not be such a good thing for us as a group.
as a left wing liberal hippie commie pansy i hope kerry wins.
we can use the redskins game.
Also, the cashier at the grocery store told me that bushes planets are in eclipse while kerry's are in alignment. we all know that is clearly going to come into play <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> the scary part is that i am not lying about this at all. i had this converation while buying milk at the store down the block.
Each state has at least 2, one for each senator. The rest are by population. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
California has 55
Every state is guarenteed 2 votes.
So while california has 35 million people, NH, which has 4 votes has 1 million people.
See an imbalance here?
Therefore, proportion time:
<!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->
35 (million) 1
------------ x ------
55 (votes) # votes
<!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
Using proportionate math to solve this problem and keep things equal, NH should should only get about 1.5 votes.
HOWEVER, NH in reality gets 4. This is one of the many reasons why NH is such a deciding factor in elections, not to mention that NH is the first of primarys and stuff. <3 NH
Small states get a small but effecitve boost when determing electorial votes, whereas large states actually get HINDERED by the electorial system.
For example, to get 1 electorial vote per 500,000 people would mean that California would get <b>70</b> electorial votes and NH would get 2.
Start contrast when you compare one of the smaller states in proportion to the largest, eh?
OH and btw, smaller states = smaller in population. The truth is the "small" states make up most of the nation in land mass.
While Gore won 500,000 more votes than Bush did, Bush won close to 80% of the land in the US.
There is a nice and delicate balance between people who own land and those who do not. The electoral system is pretty much perfect at representing all the interests of the voters and it's a shame people are too stupid to realize how it serves them.
I really really hope Kerry wins, but the only way that could happen is if more than 50% of the people actually get out and vote. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I think in 2000 about 49% of eligible voters voted. I think that if every eligible voter voted, Kerry would win, but that's not gonna happen. Problem is, is that it seems like most Bush supporters are slightly fanatical.
Keep in mind that there's usually more to vote for than just a presidential candidate.
But I do think that the electoral system is better than a straight popular vote. Going with a straight popular vote would make New York, California and Florida even more important than they already are. If it were a straight popular vote, the presidency would be determined solely by urban population centers while most of the North East and Mid-West get ignored. New York City has more people than Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont combined. Forlorn already explained the math of the EC, so I won't do it again. Suffice to say, I enjoy the disproportionate power smaller states have.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Problem is, is that it seems like most Bush supporters are slightly fanatical.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I actually think that Dems have the advantage this year. There's a lot of people from groups that have traditionally low turnout geared up to kick Bush out of office. Republicans are certainly going balls to the wall trying to get the vote out, but I think that the Dems have been more successful registering and mobilizing new voters.
In Canada we use the per-vote system in determining our Prime Minister and it seems to serve us quite well. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Our system works similarly to the states, the major differnence is that every region elects a voting member of parliment, rather than all the elected members from one alignment in a state representing all that state's regions.
You fix that not by changing the voting system, but by making approval voting.
You fix that not by changing the voting system, but by making approval voting. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
...which would be changing the system no?
You fix that not by changing the <b>electorial</b> voting system, but by making approval voting. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
...which would be changing the system no? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
lol I meant
The problem is that california and new york have no idea what Iowa needs, and in order for new york and california to eat, they need iowans to be able to live and produce food. At the same time, new york and california (as a populous of people) are too short sited to see this, and will vote for their own betterment - at the expense of Iowa.
The electoral college attempts to even this out.
The two parties are also know as "catch alls" (both in people and ideology), therefore having, in essence a party within a party (almost impossible in Brittan. If your labor, you must vote party lines! Party whips have more sway in parliamentary systems). For example, in the republican party, you have one small segment that wants to ban immigrants/ foreign trade (enter pat Buchanan to represent this demographic) and a larger segment that embrace trade/immigrants (enter john McCain that represents this demographic) So, if you don’t like the 2 candidates, decide which side you lean, join the party and participate in the primary election. You have 9 candidates to choose from in the primary election then 2 in the presidential election. The only people I see that are screwed with our two party system are Left/Right wing fanatics (i.e. Extreme nationalist, Socialist, communist, KKK etc) and those that are dead center (Libertarians are commonly identified as centrist, but traditionally lean republican).
If Nader is really serious about being the president, he would join the democratic party, represent the far left of the dems and participate in the primary election. Instead, he flouts his ego, runs around spouting "Corporate conspiracy theories" and bashes our electoral system using it as an excuse why no one votes for him.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The problem is that california and new york have no idea what Iowa needs, and in order for new york and california to eat, they need iowans to be able to live and produce food. At the same time, new york and california (as a populous of people) are too short sited to see this, and will vote for their own betterment - at the expense of Iowa.
The electoral college attempts to even this out. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well put muffassa. I had a discussion about this with in my US government and politics class. People who live in the heartland produce alot of essential goods that are the foundation of our industrialized economy (i.e. Our food). It would be futile to assume that people in New York, San Fransisco and LA would take their needs into consideration when voting..
While i do suport the mantainence of the electorial college, I do support the idea of splitting electorial votes. It mantains the influence of small states (preventing politicians pampering small segments of the country) while giving republicans/dems who live in red/blue states more influence in the election.
Oh and about my prediction. I can say with utmost certanty that Ralph Nader will not win the election.. Your better off flipping a coin who will win between bush and kerry.
for Bush
for Bush <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A bit optimistic there eh? All I can say for certian is that Ralph Nader will lose by 538 Electorial votes <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Ill put money on it if anyone wants to challange that prediction <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
You mean like the senate?
You mean like the senate? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The senate used to be a representative of the states until the constitution was amended to change the manner in which they are elected.