The Electoral College: Necessary?

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by ktwsolo, Dec 19, 2001.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mister_Bunny Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 5, 2001
    star 3
    What happens if only one person votes in California? 54 electoral college votes would be decided this way? Silly.
  2. Maveric Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 17, 1999
    star 4
    Yep, that is right. Personally I favor the adaption of the Electoral College so that it worked either on the district or proportionate system. Both of these are the easiest to implement as it does not require a constitutional amendment to enact. A simple law of each state legislature would take care of that.
  3. Mister_Bunny Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 5, 2001
    star 3
    Got any info on the procedure used to select Electors for each candidate? I know they must be the true-blue big shots of the Republican and Democratic parties in each state, but what about the newer parties? How do they go about deciding who gets to be their Elector?
  4. Maveric Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 17, 1999
    star 4
    I can only tell you how it is done in Texas, as that is the system I am familiar with.

    Each of the two major parties hold state conventions after the primary. Each will elect a slate of electors to represent them at the Electoral College to be held at their state legislature on the third Monday in December following an election of the president.

    Only one slate of electors will go to the Electoral College, depending on who won the election in that state.

    It really isn't that hard to get elected to an Elector, my father was chosen in 1996 to serve as one. He was suffering from lymphoma at the time and I drove him to the legislature. It was an amazing experience.

    I do not know how newer parties select their electors, of if they even do. I am sure that parties that made a good showing in the primaries did indeed have a slate ready to serve in the event that they were needed, such as the Green party on the West Coast in 2000.
  5. EnforcerSG Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 12, 2001
    star 4
    Well, I like the idea that people who know nothing about politics should have less of a voice than people who do know. I would probably be in the former, but I still agree with that concept (lets just say that if i knew i belonged in the later, I would not want some bum who knows more about a football team than his local rep's being equal in that respect). Also, I was told in Poly Sci that that was a reason for the EC. To keep out those who know nothing about politics from bleeping the country up, so it is a good idea IMHO.

    And Maveric, like your sig, may i continue?

    "But as the threads expanded, it became our last best hope for discussion. Because sometimes peace is just another word for spam."
  6. Maveric Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 17, 1999
    star 4
    EnforcerSG

    That is an oft overlooked caveat of our political system. That only those who were in the best position to make the decision as to who should lead our country would have the capability to do so.
  7. Darth Fierce Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 6, 2000
    star 4
    (continuing from another thread...)

    Treecave

    "that to me is the primary argument for getting rid of the thing. "

    Yeah, I do want to clarify that my arguments aren't about keeping our current election rules, but rather just that we can't retroactively apply new ones to prove who should have won.

    And while TX might have a superior vote-counting system, it still comes down to the fact that we could come up with 2000 different ways to count the ballots in FL, and yeah I'm sure a lot of them would favor Gore. But that's exactly why there are laws that are clear beforehand about how it will be done. Maybe there are other states that Bush lost, that he would have won under different counting methods.

    Hey, all those killer sharks in FL - did they get to vote? A lot of people think Republicans do well in that demographic. :eek:


    Imrahil
    "I thought my argument was simple and to the point. "

    It was, I just thought it was irrelevant. :p Just teasing.

    "I think the same could be true of New York and California for Gore."

    Yep, possibly We'll never know what would have happened under different circumstances.

    "And if people don't bother to vote, I don't beleive they have a right to complain about our elected officials."

    Agreed.
  8. TreeCave Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2001
    star 4
    Yeah, I do want to clarify that my arguments aren't about keeping our current election rules, but rather just that we can't retroactively apply new ones to prove who should have won.

    Agreed - except that FL's vote counting laws had previously been interpreted by their courts to read a lot like TX's on the issue of discerning voter intent. Now, those previous cases didn't get overturned by the USSC. That USSC decision is what I question. Despite every article on the private recounts having the headline "Bush would've won anyway", if you actually read them, there are about as many counting scenarios where Gore wins as there are for Bush. And the TX one was most in line with prior FL court decisions on other recounts.

    So I maintain that Gore won FL. If I'm correct about that, then the Electoral College would have made no difference from the "popular vote", had FL bothered to write as good election code as what Jimmy Carter has helped third world countries in Africa write.

    BUT it was the Electoral College that caused the need for a recount in the first place.

    Perhaps in lieu of abolishing the silly EC altogether, which I assume won't happen, we could change it so each state does not have all its Electors vote the same way. One of the New England states already do this - they have 4 votes, and they gave some to Gore and some to Bush, which more represented their states' popular vote than simply giving all 4 to whichever guy won, no matter how slightly he won by.

    This idea COULD eliminate such close ties as FL being an issue ever again, though probably not. It might also make attempts to buy or fix elections more complex, even at state levels.
  9. EnforcerSG Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 12, 2001
    star 4
    The Bush supporters say he won more votes (after 4 recounts he did every time). The Gore supportes say he had more votes (with every recount he got more and more votes). It is over, move on...

    But do you really think that a popular vote for the pres is a good idea? Many of you here know allot more about politics than me. Do you want people who treat the election more as a popularity contest rather than an election to have the same voice as you?

    Then again, the electorial college usally does not make that much of a diffrence in that respect anyway.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.