Why I hate our electoral process

Lizardbreath

Former Staff member
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
New york
Candidates only have to work to win a few key states to win the election and not win the popular vote. Basically making a bunch of hillbillies opinions greater than everybody else's. I say our candidates grow some balls and demand a popular vote.

Who agrees?
 

Lizardbreath

Former Staff member
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
New york
That works also.
 

Tw@

Hello
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
1,160
Reaction score
2
you mean you aren't polling to get that post removed because i had no reason to post it except to make fun of him?
Hypocrite.
 

TrongaMonga

Grumpy Old Grandpa
Joined
Dec 28, 2002
Messages
10,126
Reaction score
41
Location
Portugal
I have to agree, it's a weird electoral system you guys have. It's not the majority of the people that wins (that'd be a democracy), but the majority of the states. It's just weird, since they're so differently populated.

I guess the logic behind that would be that each state has its own community where they all think alike, but you really can't speak of homogenized community in the US, yet.

Heck, we can't do that in Portugal, and we're 900 years old.
 

Wing Zero

lol just as planned
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Messages
12,206
Reaction score
16
I have to agree, it's a weird electoral system you guys have. It's not the majority of the people that wins (that'd be a democracy), but the majority of the states. It's just weird, since they're so differently populated.
it is kinda based on population. The larger the population, the more points the state is worth
 

TrongaMonga

Grumpy Old Grandpa
Joined
Dec 28, 2002
Messages
10,126
Reaction score
41
Location
Portugal
Kinda, but not entirely. I just don't get why all the effort into that, when it's actually even easier, and more democratic, to do it the simple way.
 

Wing Zero

lol just as planned
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Messages
12,206
Reaction score
16
i think its to account for people who dont vote. then again i dont know anything about the electoral college
 

Jimbo

Member!
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Messages
4,493
Reaction score
11
Website
Visit site
I HEARD YOU HAVE TO HAVE A REAL HIGH SAT SCORE TO GET IN
 

Tipsy

Respected Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2003
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
2
Location
Washington D.C
Candidates only have to work to win a few key states to win the election and not win the popular vote. Basically making a bunch of hillbillies opinions greater than everybody else's. I say our candidates grow some balls and demand a popular vote.

Who agrees?
That's a great argument for the pros and cons of both systems.
 

N[U]TS

BattleForums Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2002
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
9
Location
Tx
Candidates only have to work to win a few key states to win the election and not win the popular vote. Basically making a bunch of hillbillies opinions greater than everybody else's. I say our candidates grow some balls and demand a popular vote.

Who agrees?
I disagree. America cant even get above 65% for voter turn out in presidential elections -- SAD! What makes it worse is voter turn out for county and state is much less. Some people just do not get involved and some just are not informed enough to cast an educated vote. Example I am going to vote straight Republican ticket because my dad is one or vice versa for Democrat. It even gets as bad as "Hey, he or she is good looking -- They have my vote".

I believe the electoral college is effective which is why it has lasted for so long.
Founding fathers = brilliant.


i think its to account for people who dont vote. then again i dont know anything about the electoral college
Yes, it does account for people who do not vote since the number of electors is proportional to population. Example California posses 55 electoral votes and Texas has 34.
 

Metal Gear Flash

LaLiLuLeLo
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
3,293
Reaction score
13
Location
Lone Star State
"... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

-Thomas Jefferson
 

N[U]TS

BattleForums Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2002
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
9
Location
Tx
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed
We choose to be or not to be informed when it comes to politics. Back then this statement would be true but today we have internet and television. They did not even know of electricity back then. Heck the postal service was not even around back then.
 

x42bn6

Retired Staff
Joined
Nov 11, 2002
Messages
15,150
Reaction score
2
Location
London, United Kingdom
i think its to account for people who dont vote. then again i dont know anything about the electoral college
If some people do not vote, with such a large population, it can be assumed that the absence of votees is of the same distribution as those that vote. For example, if a state is 70-30 Republican-Democrat, then the number of absentees is also proportioned 70-30.

If such an assumption cannot be made, then too bad, it's the politicians' faults for not convincing people to vote. But giving undue weight to states is hardly a way of fixing such things - as it would undoubtedly skew results in favour of one party or another.*
 

Tipsy

Respected Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2003
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
2
Location
Washington D.C
The most effective system in regards to voter turn, not taking power away from small states, keeping the legitimacy of a public mandate, and keeping the legitimacy of the electoral college would be a proportional electoral college rather than the winner-take-all electoral college we have now or a direct popular election.
 

Tw@

Hello
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
1,160
Reaction score
2
We need a new Jackson. That mother ****er got kids to vote
 

CelestialBadger

Retired Staff
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Messages
6,792
Reaction score
18
I don't vote and bush sucks. Waiting for the communist revolution.
 

Wing Zero

lol just as planned
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Messages
12,206
Reaction score
16
"... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

-Thomas Jefferson
Early on jefferson didnt believe that what they made will last

If some people do not vote, with such a large population, it can be assumed that the absence of votees is of the same distribution as those that vote. For example, if a state is 70-30 Republican-Democrat, then the number of absentees is also proportioned 70-30.
i also accounted for that. its odd yet its still being used
 

N[U]TS

BattleForums Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2002
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
9
Location
Tx

NewPosts

New threads

Top