http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?041101ta_talk_editors The NewYorker magazine has never endorsed a candidate before and they support Kerry. George Bush shouldn't be President. He profited from a system (The electoral college) that was crafted by rich slave owners to control our society. They assumed we (the people) were lesser humans and not responsible enough to choose a leader. So they created an elitist 'college' to make the decision for us. And, as we now see, it can be manipulated by criminals like the Bush brothers. More of US voted for Gore and yet Bush is President. THAT SUCKS!! Don't buy the Bushshit propaganda. Kerry doesn't really flipflop, he didn't kill babies in the war and Cheney's daughter did always know who she was and should be proud of it. Vote for Kerry because he is the only choice that can beat Bush. Vote for Kerry because criminals should not profit from their own wrongs. Vote for Kerry or the elitist massars win again. Am I partisan? You bet your ass, right wing flamers. I'm a tree hugging hippy and damn proud to be one. I'm going to see String Cheese Incident this Saturday, Yowzaa. Stand up to the man, dump Bush, vote for Kerry.
Sorry, but I believe the Electoral College keeps the electoral powers out of the hands of the federal government, as our founding fathers intended. Abolishing the Electoral College would only make it easier to rig elections by removing one of the checks and balances. If the election is decided on only the national gross vote tally, smaller states (everything except major cities, actually) will be irrelevant. States have more power in an election with the Electoral College than without. Consistency would require that if we abolish the Electoral College, we rid ourselves of the Senate as well. The Electoral College needs to be reformed, not abolished.
Anyone care to share their thoughts about dividing up electoral votes in each state proportional to the popular vote of each state? (as opposed to winner take all) Colorado is considering such an arrangement.
I support that for sure. I think it is a very good idea, but should be applied across the nation, not just select states.
The 'electoral college' exposes our alleged democracy as an elitist dictatorship. We began with manifest destiny, the idea that the rights of the rich supersede the rights of the majority and continue to the sham that was our last presidential election. The idea that we should continue to give up our right to popular choice because there might be corruption is ridiculous. The college showed itself to be profoundly corrupt in the last election. The many need to take this country back from the few. The time for revolution is now. Slave owner mentality be damned. Changes must be made and the first one is getting the liar Bush out of office.
I think Kerry will win..if the Bush bought voting computers aren't rigged. Was reading the AAA travel mag the other day.. Bushes solution for air quality and driving was.... *drum role* to turn part of Alaska into an oil field , and tax breaks for electric/GAS hybrid cars. Kerrys solution was to convert 1/2 a million cars to alternate fuels. I can't stand democrats or republicans but Kerry is getting to be almost tollerable.
So what is your solution? Let it fall into the hands of the federal government? Talk is cheap if you don't have anything to back your words up with.
You don't seem to really grasp this, do you? I'm talking about giving the power to the people. Not back to the people because so far we haven't had the power. The electoral college assumes we are too stupid, uneducated, etc to make a valid decision. It assumes that we need to be protected from ourselves. Do what you're told boy and we'll take care of you. That was crap then and it's crap now. I'll back up my words by voting for Kerry and dumping Bush. Words that speak out for a truely free America aren't cheap. Words that promote oppression are vile. Dump Bush, Vote for Kerry
The electoral college was never an exclusively elitist agenda, it is about states' rights. I think in some instances it is still important to keep an equal representation for states that would otherwise have a drowned-out voice. Hawaii, Alaska, Oregon, Arkansas still have a unique enough voice that they should be proud of the electoral college system. Now even if you're a bleeding-heart liberal you should acknowledge that only the voters should be able to update the system, as individual states. Obviously the electoral college is going to carry through this election and when we see what Colorado chooses to do with its electoral college votes we'll know how a legitimate reform may come about. I think some states should be able to split them and some states should be able to vote with all their might as a state for one candidate or another. And of course, I think vote pairing can even out some of the discrepancies. P.S. I do not work for them!! I'm just crazy into it. Utah should be proud of its Republican stronghold and vote for the president as a block because it puts them uniquely on the map. It also gives me the freedom to pull some of them into a future third party instead of fruitlessly defend my Democratic agenda from the other side of a very tall fence.
Actually, I'm pretty sure the electoral college did exactly what it was meant to do. It seems corrupt because it didn't agree with the popular vote, but it did what it always does. Does anyone have any unbiased reason for why the electoral college is used? Maybe what Woog said is true, but I was wondering if there might be a good reason for it. That said, here is an interesting pair of sites: http://www.jimloy.com/logic/voting.htm http://www.jimloy.com/issues/electors.htm According to the first site, there is no way to ensure a fair election, and the second says the electoral college is not needed. So what IS the most effective way of voting?
No, SOME states have more power with the electoral college. Some would have more power without it. Most of the small states get ignored anyway. When is the last time any candidate made a campaign stop in Wyoming, Alaska, or Rhode Island? Abolishing the electoral college might change WHICH states are focused on, but it wouldn't make the candidates any less beholden to the people. Besides, isn't true representation of the will of the people more important than a campaign stop here and there?
The electoral college was developed because the ten most populated states have over 50% of the country's population. It was an attempt to give less populated states more leverage, so a politician could not simply focus on these ten states and leave the rest of the country out. We always new there was a possibility of a candidate receiving the majority of the popular vote but loosing the electoral college vote, but I think this has only happened twice becasue the race (generally) needs to be a statistical dead-heat to produce these results. This system worked well as long the race was clearly slanted and it helped small states get recognition as long as it was unclear who would carry each state. Today the political environment seems evenly split on almost every issue so the chances of a too-close-to-call election are much greater. On top of this, we have dozens of polls being run 24-7, so the election is all but decided in all but around ten states. With the wealth of information, candidates can (and do) choose not to waste their resources on states who's outcome is decided. So, despite the best intentions of the electoral college, we now have a system by which candidates are again only focusing on a small number of states. I for one will be voting for the electoral vote split in Colorado. I think a leader needs to win the hearts and minds of a majority of the people, and the electoral college easily allows a disconnect between voter intention and the election victor. Either system has drawbacks, but I like the way supporters in Colorado have been marketing this: "in 2000 49% of Colorado's votes went uncounted." One of those was mine. When you are living in a state that reliably leans to the political party oppositing your party, your vote really doesn't count. What's the point? Why go to the trouble to vote if you know your state will go for the other cadidate? I think this is the biggest voter disenfrachisement issue there is.
What do you guys think about something like what may happen in West Virginia with Richie Robb withholding his vote or voting for Dick Cheney? If he does this (providing Bush wins the state, of course), Bush only gets 4 of the states 5 electoral votes. In the last election, that would have been huge, we would have had an electoral tie! http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/robbcharleston.htm
The rebel in me loves this.... but what if all our electoral representatives just voted ofr whomever they wanted. Chaos.. sweet, sweet chaos...
The electoral college was a compromise crafted by americas founders to lure small states into the union. Rich land owners in those states feared that they would lose power to rich land owners in larger states. The electoral college biased the selection of americas leader so that those rich folks had a more equal say. This is also the reason for there being a house and Senate. Electors to the college are not bound by the popular vote in any strict sense. Traditionally it has been done that way but electors can go any way they want. So, if the unwashed masses go agains't the core power structure, the basis for a bloodless coup is built right into the system. Also, as we found in the last election, you only have to cheat in one state in order subvert the entire system and steal an election from the majority. However, my main point originally was not the dumping of the electoral college, which should be done. It was making sure that Bushes theft of America not be repeated. We shouldn't be fooled again. Bush is a criminal and should be jailed but short of that he should be driven out of office. The only way to accomplish that is to vote for John Kerry. Which is what I intend to do and hope many others do. Dump Bush, vote Kerry
