Are we EVER going to eliminitate the electorial college?

[Imran Siddiqui]

SO it is totally legal and will be unchallenged if all EC voters decided to ignore the electorate and vote for, say, Ross Perot?

I believe so, yes.

[Victor Galis]

Theoretically, I could organize a massive conspiracy and ask all the electors to cast their votes for me without recieving a single popular vote (assuming I was eligible to be president). In practice though, this doesn't happen and the custom of voting for the guy who won the state is followed.

[Lefty Scaevola]

It shall be got rid of so long as 1/4 or more of the states percieve an advantage form it.

[Spiffor]

Except for Defiant who wants to remain 10 times more powerful than the lesser NYer known as Boris, I don't remember having read anybody actually defending the EC. I've seen people telling that "it's not that bad", but only defiant seems to have told "It's good".

What makes the electoral college good ?

[Arrian]

Yes, the EC can actually send in whatever the hell they want.

Personally, I'd like to see it removed, or I'd at least like to see Connecticut split up our votes to line up with the popular vote w/in the state. Not that CT has many votes anyway.

Thing is, CT usually votes Democratic for Pres (Gore won it easily). All the EC votes will go that way. So my vote will either 1) add to the clear majority; or 2) be futile. I vote anyway, for 3rd parties, but it has little to no effect.

It's the "winner takes all" thing that is the major problem, IMO. But without that, the EC is pointless - if the EC sent in votes that lined up with the popular vote, then we might as well just use the popular vote and do away with the EC.

-Arrian

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

SO it is totally legal and will be unchallenged if all EC voters decided to ignore the electorate and vote for, say, Ross Perot?

I believe so, yes.

You really believe it will be unchallenged? Even if it is legal do you really believe people will accept it?

[Arrian]

It's legal, but it's just not done.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's legal... it may go challenged (who knows)... people probably won't accept it, but can't do anything about it anyway.

Actually, the people might accept it, because something BIG would have to have happened for the Democrat or Republican electors to vote for someone else.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Arrian
It's legal, but it's just not done.

-Arrian

I've had a few drinks so I'm not on the ball.

That's the point I was trying to make to DinoDoc's post, in a rather roundabout way of letting posters come to the conclusion I was after. Basically the fact that its legal or constitutional is irrelevant, its the practicalities that we need to consider.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I believe it was done once .

One elector of one state voted for some third-party dude in an election. My bet was that he was never voted elector again .

[Defiant]

Spiffor,
It puts Wisconsin on more of a equal footing with New York and most midwest states.
As for Victor's conspiracy, yea, that happens all the time, good reason for removing it.
I am still looking for some information for Boris to educate the boy.

[Victor Galis]

Nah, that was an example to prove what is legally possible.

My reasons to hate the EC are because it essentially makes any vote I would cast for president not count.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Spiffor
What makes the electoral college good ?

But for the electorial college system, you would see the recounts and lawsuits that happened in some counties in Florida last time, happening in every large county in every state anytime you have a halfway close (withind couple million or so votes) presidential election.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But in a direct popular vote, you're vote (for a third party President) probably wouldn't count either .

[Boris Godunov]

I can't decide if Defiant is a DL of jimmytrick or Fez...

Keep looking for the non-existant proof that, somehow, Wisconsin is subsidizing New York.