Post your election projections!

They both worked quite well in their time, though all things spoil sooner or later...

 

Corruption will always creep it's way in somehow... Tis the greedy nature of humans...

 

not really...once people found power in rome..the roman republic was dead..

as for athens? a democracy that votes in oligarchic groups every other day and ostracizes people hardly seems to have worked well

 

which is why the majority must respect the minority

 

First off nobody said anything about disrespecting the minority... Besides that has nothing to do with corruption, corruption happens regardless.

 

what do you think madison and others mean when they talk about an 'overbearing' majority? They surely arent against a just group doing best for society....i'll bbl

 

I predict that Kerry will win but the machines won't record that minor little detail so we'll get Bush..in the next 4 years we will see a collapse in the economy, sky rocketing oil prices and war on american soil.

 

FIRST OF ALL, the electoral college is just plain stupid. You talk about "protecting the rights of the minority" but how is an arbitrary system going to do that?

Did the minority who voted for George Bush really need to be protected from Al Gore's mad quest for world domination? I think not. If a few hundred votes in Florida had swung the other way, the outcome would have changed. If a few million votes in California had swung the other way, the outcome would have been exactly the same. How is that fair?

And don't give me that crap about giving the small states a leg up. The small states don't vote as a bloc. The idea that the large states will oppress them is a relic of the 18th century. Vermont votes the same way as New York, and Alaska votes the same way as Texas.

As for the idea that candidates will stop visiting rural areas in favor of the cities...so what? Isn't true popular representation worth more than a campaign stop? It's not like this would further divide America...it would just change the division from "red state vs. blue state" to "urban vs. rural." Why is that a bad thing?

 

arbitrary? err..yeah ok...a system devised by arguably the smartest group of men to ever walk this earth...based on past failures of democracies in order to prevent the same downfalls..THAT is arbitrary!? yeah, ok.

You dont set policy/law for good guys, you set it for bad guys. I dont even think the electoral college is to blame for 2000. God knows what the real vote in florida looked like without voter fraud/hanging chads/ballots not counted. I bet gore would have won in an ideal system, and thus the electoral college would have worked fine. Of course, our shitty polling stations/devices arent to blame..the electoral college is...

Listen, you only need a dozen or so states to win the presidency(of course, winning florida/california/new york/texas is NOT an easy feat for one person). You honestly think that is great? As it is now, it requires candidates to get smaller states on their side. We are a state system, no matter what you say, our whole system is based on the states. Do you think we should change our whole system?

edit: a relic of the 18th century!? My god! read about ancient democracies. If you dont think we are vulnerable to the same problems that plagued athens/rome, then i think you are foolish.

I think everyone should have a voice that matters. Listen, you guys are blowing this way out of proportion. The electoral college doesnt let 10% dictate what 90% does. Look how CLOSE the 2000 election was. it was 48.38% gore, 47.87% bush. You are blowing the whole majority thing to insane proportions, when its just not true.

Thankfully, little states will have to be the ones convinced on the destruction of the electoral college..i'm glad. Our system has worked fine. Those who oppose the electoral college need to learn that we are a state based system. do you find it fair that vermont gets 2 senators when california only gets 2 senators? We should get rid of that. Lets destroy the rights of small states.

 

Anyone care to comment on the idea of assigning a state's electoral vote proportional to the popular vote, yet still allowing each state to retain the same number of electoral delegates it now has?

(in other word's, what Colorado has been debating)

 

Your blind trust in authority is appalling.

The point is Gore won the popular vote by over half a million votes. That is an indisputable fact. 500,000 more people voted for Gore than Bush, but Bush gets to be president because the votes of cityfolk aren't as important as the votes of farmers. If the will of the people was the law of the land, Gore would have won INDISPUTABLY.

If we had a popular vote, you wouldn't need ANY states to win the presidency. You'd need a majority overall.

I'm all for states' rights, but this is a NATIONAL ELECTION. Would you favor an electoral college system to determine your senator or governor...where the redneck counties in your state are disproportionately more influential than the large cities?

Yeah, those poor Utah Democrats who wouldn't count under a popular vote system. Fortunately you have the electoral college to make sure their vote counts! *sarcasm*

Someone could theoretically win the electoral college with as little as 28% of a two-way vote.

Thankfully, large majorities of "little state" voters agree that the electoral college has outlived its usefulness, as do many of the politicians thereof.

Again, the presidency is a national election. A Senate race is not.

 

It'd be a step in the right direction, but it would still be better to get rid of the electoral college entirely.

 

Sorry that i take more heart to the words of federalist papers and other documents than your argument of "the electoral college is just plain stupid"

As i said, i dont think this is the fault of the electoral college. There were So many irregularities for the 2000 election to blame it on the electoral college and not our shitty elections.

disproportionately? Vermont gets 3 electoral votes...california gets 35ish...but thats disproprotional...GOD, what is your definition of disproportional? edit: Notice STATES RIGHTS, not county rights.

Uh.., you mean if they get the 12 or so biggest electoral states? i'd like to see your math on this one...

Really? Please, list the 35 states who will pass that amendment..with some evidence of course.

Who said it was? It was used as an example to show that we are a state system. Our system is protect the minority, which is WHY WE HAVE A SENATE.

 

I was just thinking about some things Megara... You are so worried about the minority, yet you support the electoral college..? What about the wiiner take all thing... Say a slight majority in Texas is republican, then all the states electoral votes are republican.... Sure is helping the minority huh? A direct election by popular vote would fix that... It would be a far more accurate representation of the will of the people...

 

33.9 million people in California
0.6 million people in Vermont

55 EVs in California
3 EVs in Vermont

Vermont has 1.8% the population of California, but has 5.5% the influence of California. In other words, a vote in Vermont counts for over three times as much as a vote in California.

I see. You only want to protect the rights of the minority if it matches your dogma. You're a hypocrite.

If a candidate can get 51% of the vote in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, Georgia, and New Jersey, then they don't even have to be on the ballot in any of the other states.

It's theoretical and the odds of that happening are unlikely, but it does illustrate the absurdity of the electoral college.

Yeah, yeah, we have a state system. We've been over this. The electoral college does nothing...I repeat: NOTHING...to protect this system. The presidential election is a NATIONWIDE election. You talk about protecting the small states, but if you live in Alaska or Vermont there is no point in even showing up at the polls, because you already know how your state will vote.

 

vermonts share of US population .5% 620k/290mil.....3 electoral votes of 538.. .2% of the electoral college.

California is.. 54 mil/290 mil... 12% of US...55 electoral votes of 538... 10.22% of the Electoral college.

Your numbers just flat out wrong.

As we know, the electoral college gives more a boost to smaller states...so the numbers do not corresponsd 100%, but they are pretty damn close.

The constitution/federalist papers talk about state's rights..not county rights. Damn, madison and hamilton are hypocrites! DAMN THEM! i'll make sure to tell them you disapprove when i die.

The population of those states is over 162 million(i rounded down). That is 55% of the US population..where on earth did you get 28%?!

such foolish and dangerous language. And if all the kerry voters say "oh well, we always go democrat, why vote" then bush will win it. Vermont went to reagan in 84

Btw..1988 election...vermont went for bush...new york went for dukakis.. so much for new york/vermont always voting the same way....we have a republican governor..we had a democrat bfeore that...we have an independent senator(was a republican)..a democrat senator..an independent house of rep member(was a socialist as mayor of burlington). Vermont is NOT always voting one way.

 

Our system is a state based system, that is the minority i'm talking about. You can go nuts with the minority status and break it down by counties...cities...whatever. Our framers drew the line at state. I agree with that.

I cant find any compelling evidence to favor abandoning our state system. We are a state system. If we abandon the electoral college...we may as well abandon our whole state based system and move towards something more direct. After all, why have states rights? Why protect them?

 

Looks like monkey boy might win again....Lots of states are amending against gay marriages....God I'm glad I'm Canadian.

 

That system made sense when there was the 13 original colonies, and each one pretty much wanted to be it's own sovreign nation. But now you have 50 states, the situation has changed. It dosn't make sense to me that 50% of the country can want a candidate in the office, but the other guy still gets in ? How is that respecting the rights of the majority?

 

The whole thing with the states is outdated... States barely have any rights nowadays anyway... Basicaly, they are nothing more than a convenient way to organize things...