El_Gringo_Grande

I just don't want the state dictating when I can vote and who I can vote for. For example here in Oklahoma you can only vote for your party in the primary. If you don't have a party (such as I) you can't vote in the primary.

As Wiskysix pointed out in some states unless you vote for a particular party your vote simply isn't going to count. That is because the State has said all the EC votes will go for the overall winner. Even if the "looser" gets 49.9 percent of the vote the winner will get all the Electoral College.

That kind of thing just invites the current gaminess seen in the current system. As long as you can eek out that last tenth of a percent of voters you get everything. Doesn't matter if you tick off lower 49%. Doesn't matter if you disregard the lower 49 percents issues.

I just don't like it. No sir, not one bit.

__________________
I’m not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
- "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
- "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
- "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
- If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

ThePenguineer

Don't worry. I think they started making pink tasers....

__________________

leejo

Well of course they have to manage *when* people vote to some degree. And no-body is telling you who you can vote for. If you want to vote for Foxy Brown, nobody will stop you.

And I'm sure you can understand why many states have some restrictions on voting in primaries. Suppose all the republicans got together and worked to vote Dennis Kucinich as the Democrat's wee candidate in the general election, just because they figured he'd be easiest to defeat. If you want to vote in a primary, register as a member of a party. Nobody is stopping you, nor is anybody but you responsible for the decisions you make. I don't see how anyone is doing anything TO you here...

Well, I don't know what to say except to get out there and stir up the pot. Clearly a lot of people disagree with your position, since things are the way they are, so get them to vote for your ideas and make them happen.

But strictly speaking, the constitution is a contract between the states and the federal government, so you pretty much have to go through the state government to get to the federal candidates. You may not like it, but that's what federalism is all about, and a lot of people do like it. So again, get out there and fix it or die trying.

SmokingTarpan

Well, does the EC contiune to exist because the majority actually agrees it's the best way to do things? Or because the majority simply doesn't care/understand enough to even think about it? I reckon it's more of the latter than the former. I reckon.

__________________

[squadl]
"I am the prettiest african-american, vietnamese..cong..person." -SugarNCamo

leejo

We're talking about different things. I was addressing El Gringo's concerns about not being able to vote in primaries and state's winner-take-all laws. One reason why it will be difficult to get rid of the EC, even if it were a good idea (not saying it is or isn't), is that it would cut the state legislatures out of the loop altogether. They're not likely to support that.

I think abolishing the EC would be a real watershed moment in the erosion of states' power that has ramifications beyond the presidential election. Also, the issue only really comes up ever so often, right? Once or twice in the nations' history so far...Is this an urgent problem that requires an amendment? I don't think so, personally.

El_Gringo_Grande

Leejo, you assume I don't stir the pot? Of course I do. Among the people I come into contact with, if politics come up I have no problem going discussing my opinion. And they often run counter to those I speak with. It often angers many I speak. Such is life.

And in this very thread I am doing this, no?

You are correct in that this is a issue low on the priority list. And it isn't going to change anytime soon. But I don't see what benefit is gained to the nation as a whole with the Electoral College.

But what power does a state gain with it outside the ability of the ruling class to have an influence over the actions of the people. What power would the state loose if there was only the popular vote to go by. And is that power necessary to guarantee the individuals freedom and rights? Or is it necessary only for powers sake?

__________________
I’m not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
- "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
- "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
- "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
- If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

leejo

What difference does it make? You seem concerned about what is "right" and I'm talking about how it is. If you hope to accomplish anything it's a good idea to get knee deep in understanding the latter. All I'm saying is that in order to abolish the EC, people have to figure out how to overcome significant resistance at the state government level. The political parties probably won't go for it either, when push comes to shove, so....good luck!

xTYBALTx

I'm not following.

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

CingularDuality

It's simply a matter of whether your state has the right to determine how its electoral votes are cast, or if the federal government steals yet another right from the states. If Oklahoma wants to split its votes based on the popular vote, then Oklahoma can go on with its bad self.

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

xTYBALTx

Reading some of the replies to this thread, and in real world discussions regarding the electoral college, there is one specific issue which keeps rearing its not-so-ugly head: Many people hold the belief that the electoral college kept Al Gore from winning the 2000 election. If the electoral college kept the candidate with the most popular votes from taking the White House, then it must be done away with, right? "I mean come on, we all know that Al Gore really won the election, and we don't want to let another losing candidate - from any party - to take the White House."

At first glance, this seems to be a truism - Al Gore did in fact have more popular votes than did George Bush. But there are real, legitimate reasons why this does not mean that Al Gore would have won the election had winner been decided by popular vote rather than through the electoral college. "WHAT??" Yes, I expect that reaction. Again, at first glance, the statement I just put forth seems to be just about as flat out wrong as a statement can be. So let's get to those real, legitimate reasons which I alluded to earlier:

For well over a year prior to November 2000, Al Gore and George Bush were locked in a battle for the presidency. Let's not fool ourselves here; this was a war. Each side had teams of consultants, advertising experts, pollsters, regional experts, and "foot soldiers." Each campaigns' team worked around the clock for months on end towards their sole goal: victory on election day. These people are not foolish. Their methods have stood the test of time, their status derived from past victories in hard fought elections. And these people know that victory on election day requires electoral college votes, not a plurality of the national popular vote.

So what does this mean for our discussion? It means that right off the bat, some of the largest population centers were practically ignored. Candidates visited states like California, Washington, New York, New Jersey, Michigan, and Texas for fund raising purposes only. Few to no foot soldiers were deployed there. Regional experts and pollsters and political analysts did not bother to take these massive population centers' opinions into account, because so long as no big mistakes were made such that true alienation occurred, these were safe one way or the other. This allowed the candidates to focus their resources on the states that mattered, "battleground states." These contested locales were where the winner of the election would be decided.

And based on the rules in place at the time, George Bush emerged victorious. Yes, the election was a close one - a squeaker. But going back and measuring victory by a metric which did not count at the time - the popular vote - is not reasonable. It is akin to ruling, unexpectedly and after the fact, that a football game will be decided by time of possession instead of score. The teams weren't playing to control time of possession; sure, time of possession is great to have, but it's by no means the most important thing. The most important thing was the score. The teams planned, drilled, and practiced on the basis of score being the deciding factor. The winner prepared hardest and longest for that specific measure of effectiveness and no other. To change metrics after the fact is unfair and will lead to inaccurate conclusions, because just as the football game would have been played much differently had the players known that time of possession were the most important statistic, so too would the presidential candidates have planned and executed differently had they known popular vote would be the deciding factor. They would have behaved much differently, their campaigns and policies would have been significantly different.

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

snooggums

Actually Bush won at the time that he did because the Florida State Supreme Court ruled that the state did not need to do a required recount. He won by overriding the standard voting procedure. Whether or not he actually won the state's popular votes to get the EC votes is a different matter.

In the 2004 election he won Ohio when the exit poll numbers did not match the results and there were serious concerns that the voting arrangements favored Republican areas over Democratic areas (see the length of voting areas near the colleges etc). Again, there was an issue of a split state giving all their votes to the winner when it is clearly divided.

The problem is that a little voter fraud in carefully placed areas can swing a winner take all election, or a person can win the Electoral College vote with a much smaller percentage of the total vote. This just happened to be illustrated in the 2000 election when it showed people that their vote really doesn't matter.

I still think the EC votes should match the states split, this would still have smaller states have a bigger impact for size, but allow the bigger states to still have the biggest impact overall. Each person's vote would still matter.

__________________

leejo

No Bush won in 2000 when he WON Florida and Gore sued to demand a recount and wound up not getting it. Bush WON in 2004 when he WON Ohio and Kerry declined to neuter himself a la Gore.

If you are truly concerned about voter fraud then I trust you support having people provide picture ID and proof of citizenship before voting - a consistent R position that is consistently opposed by the Ds for "disenfranchising voters" - all 8 people who don't have picture ID and some proof of citizenship like they had to show to get a job.

Kerostasis

Yeah, not quite. Bush won the first count. Then he won the recount. Then he won the second recount. Gore's lawyers were gearing up for yet a third recount when the Florida Supreme court finally put an end to the insanity, and said 3 counts was enough.

How you translate that to "overriding the standard voting procedure" is beyond me.

__________________

leejo

Florida's court, heavily democrat, was happy to basically defy a SCOTUS scolding and order another recount, but they got the smackdown from on high.

Kerostasis

Right, couldn't remember which court it was that stopped things. Thanks for the correction.

__________________