Are we EVER going to eliminitate the electorial college?

[Defiant]

Up yours Boris, typical New Yorker, we are just fly over country, right Boris, twit.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Defiant
Up yours Boris, typical New Yorker, we are just fly over country, right Boris, twit.

You'll notice I didn't denegrate the Midwest, unlike your dismissal of the coasts. I think all Americans count, not just the ones in my narrow geographical realm.

And as mfor Wisconsin, let's examine its voting trends in Presidential elections. Who does the state most often side with? A) Candidates supported by other Midwest states or B) Candidates supported by the Coastal states? So much for that.

Tell ya what...us coastal states will stop sending the massive farm subsidies to you guys that are paid for by our taxes, and then you can see how you fare. Deal?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Defiant
Without it Spiffor, Wisconsin has virtually no say and the populas states already have greater advantage in the House, again as it should be, but the electoral if for electing presidents, I am not talking about creating laws now.

Actually, I've never liked the senates and every form of "representative democracy" which give more or less weight to the voters depending on their location.
For some reason, people from underpopulated areas tend to disagree with me (whether they are from some underpopulated area of France or a less-populated country of Europe)
From this perspective, I wonder why Boris' voice should be less worthy than yours (or more worthy if he were from an even less populated State).

Also, if I understand the electoral college correctly, 100% of the State's "big voters" will be from the winning party. Making any 51% majority into a 100% majority. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
This makes the remaining 49% absolutely unrepresented nationwide. Of course only the two big parties have a chance to win in this context...

[MRT144]

defiant, only a pathetic midwesterner would defend their ****hole in the ground to the death. the rest move to california

[Defiant]

Fine Boris,
And we will stop sending money for your welfare needs, *** for tat, boy. BTW, grow your own food, that should about a day for your needs. And................ no more beer for you out of Wisconsin and Missouri or whiskey out of Kentucky.
How is that outstanding senator of yours doint, I think his name is MR. Hillary and I see slick willy wants to be your governor, you dumb s**** will elect him.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Also, if I understand the electoral college correctly, 100% of the State's "big voters" will be from the winning party. Making any 51% majority into a 100% majority. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
This makes the remaining 49% absolutely unrepresented nationwide. Of course only the two big parties have a chance to win in this context...

I believe one state apportions its electoral votes based on the popular vote, but that is essentially correct.

I wouldn't object to the electoral college were it truly representative of the states (in other words, eliminate the 2-seat bonus given based on Senators and make the number of electoral based really based on population).

[Dauphin]

The EC system would be improved if States could split up their votes between candidates.

[MRT144]

defiant, the west coast could grow its own food...

[Defiant]

Sure you could, but is it enough for us midwest dredges that keep moving to the coasts when we see the light.

[Victor Galis]

The electoral college ensures that states which are always won by one party will get ignored. Heck, I'm seriously wondering if it's worth registering to vote in Georgia, I mean Bush is just going to win it in '04.

[MRT144]

sure...provided you cut down on your fatty food intake.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Defiant
Fine Boris,
And we will stop sending money for your welfare needs, *** for tat, boy.

What are you talking about? Lets compare the GDPs of New York vs. Wisconsin and see who is supporting you. Sans Federal farm subsidies, your state economy would be in the ****ter.

BTW, grow your own food, that should about a day for your needs. And................ no more beer for you out of Wisconsin and Missouri or whiskey out of Kentucky.

Again, . Who needs Wisconsin for food? We can more than have our foods need met by Canada, for pete's sake, and we don't have to subsidize their farmers. You are aware that more and more, Americans are eating imported food rather than that produced here, yes?

And we can get out cheddar from Vermont, which is superior anyway.

As for beer...you call that piss beer? New England and Pacific Northwest microbreweries produce real beer, not crap like Milwaukee's Best *shudders in disgust.* What more will you deprive us of, Minnesota's giant ball of twine? Oh no!

How is that outstanding senator of yours doint, I think his name is MR. Hillary and I see slick willy wants to be your governor, you dumb s**** will elect him.

Typical. Hillary has represented NY interests well. So how much do you love Feingold, eh?

[Defiant]

Here is the problem, if we disable the current Senator system as Boris suggests and vote purely by popular vote, the greater pops will vote and create laws benefitting their needs and culture without giving a rip, while the smaller states just get dragged behind. There are different social ecomonic differences between the larger populas coast states and the Midwest and all voices must be heard equally, even if that kind of means that Idaho gets 2voices to New York's one, it still puts them on equal ground.
About 20 years ago upper Wisconsin and the Michigan UP wanted to become their own state of Superior because the were getting no representation out of their states gov't, the solution is not to abandon them even more.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Also, if I understand the electoral college correctly, 100% of the State's "big voters" will be from the winning party. Making any 51% majority into a 100% majority. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
This makes the remaining 49% absolutely unrepresented nationwide. Of course only the two big parties have a chance to win in this context...

I was thinking about that too.

Are EC votes given on the basis of population? I will use 1 milliomn people = 1 vote. So if a state like California which has a population of ~30 million or so has 15 million +1 vote for Democrats, and 15 million -1 vote Republicans the net electoral college vote is 30 for Democrats.

Then, several other sparse states totalling 29 million can not overturn the votes of California, even if they all voted the same way, as they only have 29 votes.

That means that 15 million people get the President they want, whilst 44 (15 Californians and 29 from other states) million don't.

Or is my understanding completely wrong?

[Boris Godunov]

Defiant, name one presidential election in history where all of the big states voted for one candidate and all of the small states voted for another.

On top of that, explain how such disaster law changes would be made, considering the U.S. Senate would STILL be based on equal represenation from the states. The only changes we're talking about making is in the electoral colleges, not the actual Senate.

Will await your response eagerly.