You know as a tater tot when I first heard that term, I thought it was where electricians went to get their degrees.

Anyway this should be a healthy debate, I know a certain local will especially enjoy this.

The founding fathers, as freedom-loving educated wealthy snobs as they were, were frightened by direct democracy and mob rule (which they're right about) so they devised that Electoral College to which decide Presidential elections and not say the popular vote.

There're arguments for and against getting rid of the Electoral College method. Some argue that this would forever get rid of the damn swing states and how both parties couldn't give a rat's ass about 40 states but adore and cuddle and handjob 10 or so states every 4 years. Seriously why does friggin Iowa matter more than California and Texas combined?

Or that our electing system is outdated and we need to allow the majority-voted candidates to actually win the Presidency and not lose by a technicality.

Others argue we'll become even more dysfunctional voting-time with such a two-party friendly system like the E.C. wrecked, it would open up for splintering and hey the Greens and Libertarians would matter more and Tea Baggers would have their own candidate if the GOP don't cooperate or whatever. In short, plurality would be next to impossible. (I'm reminded of France and other democracies which have first and second rounds of voting to weed out the low-voted candidates.) Or that save for 3 (or is it 4?) occassions, the system has actually worked in line with the popular vote.

What do you all think?

I'm not a fan of this at all. I always think of how a democrat in Texas or a Republican in New York must feel come presidential election day.

Like a turd in a punch bowl?

Not really, I bet that draws all the attention. Those poor fellas though would feel as if they are invisible.

Invisible to say the least!

Yeah, and since I may have ended up living in Alabama, it would've been really hard on me. I can never say I'm an independent. I'm as blue blooded democrat as they come. Ron Paul's message might align a lot with what I believe in, yet his views on women issues would prevent me from even thinking about anyone like him or in general from republican side.

Anyway, this electoral college is not exactly one person, one vote.

It is an outdated system. When candidates only spend their time in a few states, that defines the problem right there. This approach certainly helps people feel disenfranchised as a voter. The electoral college makes about as much sense as the Whip & Whig parties of the late 1700s.

While we're at it, I'd like to see campaign reform. Simply put, elected officials would not be able to start campaigning until 6 months prior to the election. That would they could actually DO THEIR DAMN JOBS instead of wasting two years campaigning. It'll never happen, I know.

"Well, you know in the old days, when the senators didn't vote the way that the party leaders wanted 'em to... they whipped them."

Get rid of the EC, I would like to see some of the candidates actually campaign in NYC for a change besides coming here to just raise money and jet off.

Yeah, that'd be nice.

The electoral College has been a constant structure, representing the basic principles of federalism, crafted by the Founding Fathers, who determined that the several states through its voters elect the President.

I don't think it can be abolished as it would take a 2/3 majority from both the House and Senate and then ratification by 39 of the 50 States. Neither of these things can realistically take place.

Ain't gonna happen.

Two states, Maine and Nebraska, can split their electoral votes. Two votes go to the winner of the popular vote, and the other votes are determined by the majority winner in each congressional district within the state. In 2008 Obama received one Nebraska electoral vote as he edged out McCain in one of Nebraska's three districts.

Nebraska Republicans tried hard in 2010 to pass legislation reverting to a winner-take-all method. Meanwhile in 2010 PA republicans fought hard to introduce the apportionment method of electoral selection. If it had been in place in 2008, McCain would have garnered more electoral votes in PA than Obamaa, who won the Copmmonweaalth by 9 points.

Agreed

That's my Pizzaboy!


Another thing that drives me nuts about the electoral college is we don't use it in the primaries. They should use a uniform system of the popular vote.


If push came to shove, I'd love to see Ohio split into North & South. That way the hicks below Columbus can get vote with from their confederate flag draped pickup trucks and give their candidate 4 electoral votes.

I know you're serious, Goom. But that just made me laugh hysterically for some reason.

My calculations were based upon using 4 votes for Southern OH. This would match the avg amount of teeth these voters have...

There are alotta good reasons to abolish the Electoral College. I think that some of you are mixing the primaries w/the Electoral College.

Iowa, NH & SC hold alotta sway bc they hold their political primaries early, so they set the pace & number of the candidates. But they hold no extra sway in the Final election outside of their number of electoral votes. BTW, the electoral votes match up to state population & match the number of a State's Congressmen & are appointed by someone at the State level. I never figured out who. As far as the states, it is always winner take all in the electoral college, the apportionment of late is in the primaries not the electoral college. There was a single electoral vote for Reagan in 1976; a renegade vote only.

The states that do control our national election (Ohio, Fl., Penn.) have that sway bc most of the other big states always vote the same way;eg, Texas- Repub., Calif.- Democrat. A Democrats vote in Texas really means nothing as in most of the South. Hence Oh., Fl. etc hold the power they do bc they could go either way.

Would a direct popular vote in Pres'l elections change that? I think so. What other ramifications there maybe I have'nt thought thru yet. I may never do that as everyone forgets this for four years at a time.

Now if you're not confused, plz explain it to me. I'm getting a headache thinking about this stuff.

Personally I wish the primaries were all grouped together in Regionals. Like first New England, then Midwest or the Southeast and so forth. Like Super Tuesday, but much more organized.