Eliminate the Electoral College

[DinoDoc]

http://nationaltreasure.movies.go.com/splash.html

[Al B. Sure!]

i saw the preview of that at the movie theater. my girlfriend was like WE GOT TO SEE THAT! but she also said that to every other movie that was previewed.

she wants to make my all-seeing eyes disappear

[PLATO]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
http://nationaltreasure.movies.go.com/splash.html

Interesting Trailer. I'll have to go see that one.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
http://nationaltreasure.movies.go.com/splash.html

I'm going to see it.

[Urban Ranger]

I found it mildly amusing that, in the United States of America, where everyone is equal, some are more equal than others.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
But because the Liberals did well in a few big cities in Ontario (and got a few seats in the East), the Liberals got to form the next government. How is that democratic considering the majority of the country (not people-wise) voted for a different party?

So the majority of people got to decide and not the majority of land? Wow, what a concept! In case you hadn't heard, democracy means rule of the people. If most of the people live in Californian and New York (which they don't), then those to states should have the majority of the say. That's the whole point of majority rule.

As it is, most Americans live in ten states. It is technically possible for 26% of the voters to decide the President, even against 74% voting for the other guy. If the ten states, for example, voted 100% for candidate A, and the other forty voted 51% for candidate B, despite an overwhelming majority for candidate A, B would win. That ain't right, but it's theoretically possible.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

for some reason disenfranchising urbanites is right but making rural = urban is wrong. go figure.

[chequita guevara]

What's funny is that 75% of Americans live in urban areas.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
Kansas, Dakotas, et al have far different concerns than we do on the east coast. why should we dictate their laws just because we outnumber them? they live completely differently than we do.

Because we're one country?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
it's one of those balancing acts of a constitutional republic... yes you should have a democracy where the majority makes the decisions but there needs to be checks to ensure the rights of the minority.

Should blacks be given extra votes, too?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MrFun

I see your and raise you one.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ming
I think the EC has long outlived it's real purpose. This lose the state by one vote crap and get nothing for it is just stupid. It is also another way to keep third party candidates out of the way.

Ming, the winner take all rule is controlled by the State Legislators. If you don't like it in Illinois, change it. You can.

BTW, I understand that the people of Colorado are voting on an "constitutional amendment" to the Colorado state constitution to proportionally allocate their electoral votes according to the popular vote. While I think Colorado can legally do this, I think the only way it can do it is by vote of the State Legislature, as the people of Colorado have no direct say in how electors are to vote according to the US constitution.

[DinoDoc]

Personally I'd like the EC to return to its original function and not have the electors tied to the vote of the state. However I don't really see how California is disenfranchised as you people so hysterically put it compared to Mississippi as an example considering the fact that CA has a hell of a lot more electors than MS.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


So the majority of people got to decide and not the majority of land? Wow, what a concept! In case you hadn't heard, democracy means rule of the people. If most of the people live in Californian and New York (which they don't), then those to states should have the majority of the say. That's the whole point of majority rule.

As it is, most Americans live in ten states. It is technically possible for 26% of the voters to decide the President, even against 74% voting for the other guy. If the ten states, for example, voted 100% for candidate A, and the other forty voted 51% for candidate B, despite an overwhelming majority for candidate A, B would win. That ain't right, but it's theoretically possible.

Che, the distortion would be imposed primarily because the states have not apportioned their electors. The other distortion, the two extra votes for senators, is intended by our founding fathers to give small states extra votes. That was not an accident.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


So the majority of people got to decide and not the majority of land? Wow, what a concept! In case you hadn't heard, democracy means rule of the people. If most of the people live in Californian and New York (which they don't), then those to states should have the majority of the say. That's the whole point of majority rule.

As it is, most Americans live in ten states. It is technically possible for 26% of the voters to decide the President, even against 74% voting for the other guy. If the ten states, for example, voted 100% for candidate A, and the other forty voted 51% for candidate B, despite an overwhelming majority for candidate A, B would win. That ain't right, but it's theoretically possible.

You keep forgetting the soveriegn nature of the States. The federal government was not set up to be a democracy but rather a representative government. The representation was not just for the individual but for the State as well. If you don't like that system then start your own country or contact your congressman and have them propose a constitutional amendment. Oh wait! 3/4 of the States must approve it! The founding fathers were correct to recognize the importance of the States in setting up the system. If the people of 40 States want candidate B in your example, then it probably is more representative of what the countries overall issues are than candidate A...and therefore, IMHO, a better selection for President.