The Official 2008 Electoral College Prediction Thread

[snoopy369]

We've had more than enough discussions of why popular vote is not acceptable (and, moreover, never going to happen).

[Asher]

Popular Vote is completely acceptable. But it will never happen.

[Unimatrix11]

Lemme guess, snoopy: The reason is: ´game fun beats realism´, right ?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
And with generic Dems out pacing generic Repugs, those congressional delegations should become even more blue.

The problem is that generic Dems don't run though.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The problem is that generic Dems don't run though.

Yeah. They rejected my idea of not nominating a candidate until after the election.

But out in the hinterlands, say in the congressional elections, the average dem is doing better than the average republicans. It's continue this way until we start screwing up again.

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Unimatrix11
Well - i wont give a guess, until i know, what kind of machines are used for the elections this time - the rigged ones again ?

BTW: One person at least needs to say it in a thread like this: This system is so outdated, not representative and so badly in need for reform, like a firaxis game at release... Why not just go with the popular vote ?

Because then the only states that matter are New York, California, Florida and Texas, which really ****s you if you are a farmer or any other profession in the other 46 states. You serve a vital function for the economy, you need representation.

Your question shows you don't understand the federalist system or the role of states in the US, which is no surprise because you elected Hitler.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


Because then the only states that matter are New York, California, Florida and Texas, which really ****s you if you are a farmer or any other profession in the other 46 states. You serve a vital function for the economy, you need representation.

Your question shows you don't understand the federalist system or the role of states in the US, which is no surprise because you elected Hitler.

Of course, Wiggie is entirely wrong.

A popular vote would make ever vote important in every state of the union.

It will never be adopted tho because it requires a Constitutional amendment, which in ture requires a 3/4 vote in each house of Congress + ratification by 2/3 of the states. Because many states have more clout under the electorial college system, they would be voting against their own interest if the chose to support a more fair system.

[Wiglaf]

they would be voting against their own interest if the chose to support a more fair system.

Um. If a system contradicts so many states' interests, how is it fair? Is it really fair to have states with their own unique issues and problems just be completely ignored, while everyone focuses on California and New York?

Face it: interest vary by state, and some states critical to the union just happen to have small populations. There's more people in California (36 million) than in the bottom 25 most populated.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Um. If a system contradicts so many states' interests, how is it fair?

Because when voting federally, the interests are not to be the states, but the people.

As a starting point...

I love your logic though. If emancipation contradicts the interests of so many people, why is it fair?

[Wiglaf]

It doesn't contradict the interest of many people.

Because when voting federally, the interests are not to be the states, but the people.

What?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
It doesn't contradict the interest of many people.

It did too...a great many people who owned slaves.

What?

This isn't a state election, it's a federal election. When choosing the federal leader for all of the people, it is important that all people have equal say in their leader.

[Wiglaf]

It did too...a great many people who owned slaves.

Uh, there were lots more slaves and antislavery people than slaveowners.

This isn't a state election, it's a federal election. When choosing the federal leader for all of the people, it is important that all people have equal say in their leader.

You understand NOTHING. What you are proposing puts all power in a handful of states and effectively disenfranchises the other 45.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Wiglaf

Face it: interest vary by state, and some states critical to the union just happen to have small populations. There's more people in California (36 million) than in the bottom 25 most populated.

That my point!

For mathematic's sake, let's say that California has the exact same population as the bottom 25 states put together.

Under the electorial system, Califonria gets (IIRC) 52 votes for its representatives (i.e. for its population) + 2 votes for its Senators = 54 votes total. The least populated 25 states would also get 52 votes for their population + 50 votes for their Senators = 102 votes total. Thus, the least populous states have double the electorial votes as California.

Why would the 25 least populous states vote to replace this system for one in which each person's vote is counted individually and equally?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


Uh, there were lots more slaves and antislavery people than slaveowners.

So you are quantifying the limit? What is it then?

You understand NOTHING. What you are proposing puts all power in a handful of states and effectively disenfranchises the other 45.

No, what I'm proposing gives every voter the same power. This has nothing to do with states.

[Wiglaf]

You don't understand. The US is a federation of states. One state should not rule over the whole federation. You can give additional weight to a state, which the EC does. Letting a couple of states rule destroys the federal system.

By your logic, why not do away with the Senate? It's a billion times worse than the EC -- each state is equal. Why not just throw all power in the hands of the big states?

Think on it, numbnutses.