Unless they're gonna try and call a constitutional convention, I don't see it happening mostly because I don't see Congress going along with it.

//or doing anything really.

Nevermind. I actually read the article, now. They're doing that "let's-give-our-electoral-votes-to-the-winner-of-the-popular-vote" thing. Meh. That's not such a big deal.

//can't read
//likes hyphens

angrymacface: //can't read
//likes hyphens

At first glance I thought that said "likes herpes."

/can't read

States can apportion their electoral votes any way they want...coin flip if they so choose. But some day, there will be a candidate that New Jersey can't stand that is wildly popular in Texas and Florida. The voters of New Jersey will vote against him in overwhelming numbers.....but their votes won't count because of the overwhelming majorities elsewhere....and their electoral votes will go to the guy they voted overwhelmingly against. No representation.

We are a Federal Republic....it has worked.....dismantle it at your own peril.

I don't know that I like that law.

I'd rather most of the states do the Maine System, giving 2 electoral votes for the state-wide winner, and then 1 EV for the winner of each congressional district.

FTA: The measure could result in the electoral votes going to a candidate opposed by voters in New Jersey, which has backed Democratic presidential candidates since 1988.

Why do I think this is a bad idea? Because it diminishes the votes made by New Jerseyans. Might as well abolish states all together.

Stay classy, Garden State

Tommy and Gina are as important to me as the Founding Fathers.

New Jersey have done gone crazy.

But if we get rid of the Electoral College, then people who lose elections will have no one to blame, and having someone to blame your troubles on is an American institution!

I fully support abolishing the Electoral College permanently. It's an antiquated relic of a bygone era that has absolutely no value in today's society.

I feel the same way about the Second Amendment, as well. As such, I'll gladly take your flames now, with a side of sour cream.

AirForceVet: Might as well abolish states all together.

Isn't that more or less where we're at? The Federal government decides the drinking age should be 21- but doesn't have the power to make that law. Instead, it threatens to withhold highway funds (taken from the citizens to be distributed among the states) until the states pass that law.

So, please- tell me why there are states that are trying to speed up their decline into political irrelevancy?

Hideously Gigantic Smurf: But if we get rid of the Electoral College, then people who lose elections will have no one to blame, and having someone to blame your troubles on is an American institution!

Damn right. The crybaby libs still haven't shut up about 2000.

arkansas: We are a Federal Republic....it has worked.....dismantle it at your own peril.

It didn't in 2000. The majority of Americans voted for a president they didn't get. There isn't any way you can spin that and say that the system worked.

The Dreaded Rear Admiral: I fully support abolishing the Electoral College permanently. It's an antiquated relic of a bygone era that has absolutely no value in today's society.

I feel the same way about the Second Amendment, as well. As such, I'll gladly take your flames now, with a side of sour cream.

So you want LA, NY and Chicago to pick the next liberal idiot?

As for your anti-Second Amendment drivel, I hope you're never caught in a "gun free zone" where some nut job criminal starts executing people, meanwhile the law-abiding citizen left his gun at home.

Electoral college skeptics: Read and learn.

(click for new window)

The Dreaded Rear Admiral: I feel the same way about the Second Amendment, as well. As such, I'll gladly take your flames now, with a side of sour cream.

You can take my guns away when you take them away from the government. So long as that colony of criminals is armed, I will be armed.

Son of God: Their votes in the popular vote would still be just as important.

Not really. Even if everyone in NJ voted for candidate X, if most of the country outside of NJ votes for Y, then it's essentially the same as if nobody in NJ voted.

If you want to fix the electoral system, start with IRV.

Mugato: arkansas: We are a Federal Republic....it has worked.....dismantle it at your own peril.

It didn't in 2000. The majority of Americans voted for a president they didn't get. There isn't any way you can spin that and say that the system worked.

The system was not set up to guarantee the winner of the popular vote across the country would be the winner every time. You just don't like the result, but that's no reason to second guess the wisdom of the Framers of the Constitution. Sorry, but I tend to favor Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington, et al over 99.9% of Farkers.

Mugato: It didn't in 2000. The majority of Americans voted for a president they didn't get. There isn't any way you can spin that and say that the system worked.

If memory serves, President Clinton never reached 50 percent of the popular vote.

/perotista '92

Nabb1: You just don't like the result, but that's no reason to second guess the wisdom of the Framers of the Constitution

Actually, I voted for Bush in 2000 like an idiot. That doesn't change the fact that the election was bullshiat and the system is antiquated, even if the Founding Fathers couldn't commit to real democracy.

Mugato: Nabb1: You just don't like the result, but that's no reason to second guess the wisdom of the Framers of the Constitution

Actually, I voted for Bush in 2000 like an idiot. That doesn't change the fact that the election was bullshiat and the system is antiquated, even if the Founding Fathers couldn't commit to real democracy.

But this country is not a pure democracy. It's a democratic republic and the entire point of the electoral college is to keep the scales from tipping too far towards a few heavily populated states. the fact that we have a bicameral legislature with one chamber based on population and the other guaranteeing two legislators to every state is evidence of that. If you abolish the electoral college, you may as well abolish the Senate while you're at it.

Shaggy_C: Hideously Gigantic Smurf: But if we get rid of the Electoral College, then people who lose elections will have no one to blame, and having someone to blame your troubles on is an American institution!

Damn right. The crybaby libs still haven't shut up about 2000.

Precisely. Blaming your troubles on someone or something else is an American mainstay nowadays.

Hurricane hits? It's Global Warming!
Kid shoots up a school? It's guns!
Can't find a job? It's illegal immigrants!
Senator seduces a page? It's the media!
No Nativity scene at City Hall? It's the atheists!

And don't even get me STARTED on Muslims!

Nabb1: But this country is not a pure democracy. It's a democratic republic and the entire point of the electoral college is to keep the scales from tipping too far towards a few heavily populated states. the fact that we have a bicameral legislature with one chamber based on population and the other guaranteeing two legislators to every state is evidence of that. If you abolish the electoral college, you may as well abolish the Senate while you're at it.

I think ^^that^^ is the reason that most of the people that I have met that are for getting rid of the Electoral College are from large cities.
/Nebraska is looking to lose one of its votes in 4-8 yrs

Mugato: even if the Founding Fathers couldn't commit to real democracy.

They specifically avoided a democracy. Democracy, as they say, "is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner". A democracy is little more than mob rule. One shouldn't be so eager to abandon the republic.

Nabb1: If you abolish the electoral college, you may as well abolish the Senate while you're at it.

We need to restrict the power of the Federal government back to something closer to Constitutional levels (not to Paulian extents, but it's the right direction) and go back to state-appointed senators. While I'm hardly a states' rights federalist, but the states do need to play a larger role than they currently do.

Calvin Coolidge: Electoral college skeptics: Read and learn.

At first I thought, that cover has to be a photoshop. But no, that's the actual cover.

Nabb1: The system was not set up to guarantee the winner of the popular vote across the country would be the winner every time. You just don't like the result, but that's no reason to second guess the wisdom of the Framers of the Constitution. Sorry, but I tend to favor Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington, et al over 99.9% of Farkers.

The process was not envisioned in the framer's day as it is enacted today. And besides, they gave the states the power to decide how to apportion the EV's, so they shouldn't have anything to say about how they chose to apportion them.

t3knomanser: Not really. Even if everyone in NJ voted for candidate X, if most of the country outside of NJ votes for Y, then it's essentially the same as if nobody in NJ voted.

If a candidate only wins NJ, it's the same if nobody in NJ voted.

If you want to fix the electoral system, start with IRV.

That is necessary to create viable third parties. And it is another reform that I think would be good for the nation, along with the popular vote EV apportionment discussed here.

MarshHawk: If memory serves, President Clinton never reached 50 percent of the popular vote.

But he still would have won under the rules of this electoral college reform.

Bush wouldn't have in 2000.

Calvin Coolidge: Electoral college skeptics: Read and learn.

Or you can read the primary source:

Nabb1: But this country is not a pure democracy. It's a democratic republic and the entire point of the electoral college is to keep the scales from tipping too far towards a few heavily populated states.

So a vote from Wyoming is worth about four votes in California. And if Arkansbambfark is the contested state, a candidate will disproportionately appeal to that state. Not to mention that the electors don't even have to vote the way the people want.

Nabb1: It's a democratic republic and the entire point of the electoral college is to keep the scales from tipping too far towards a few heavily populated states

That doesn't make any sense. In fact, that is the opposite of the effect of the electoral college. I think you are thinking of the Senate.

Actually, it's even worse than that. Since California is reliably D and Texas reliably R, candidates don't even bother to campaign there, and they focus on the handful of sufficiently large states that are in play, like Ohio and Florida. They ignore the entire rest of the country.

Today, it doesn't matter a rat's ass if a Californian or Texan changes their party in the election--So no candidate even tries to pretend they care what will influence those voters.
If the popular vote reforms were instituted, every single American's vote would be as important as anyone else's. Candidates would have to campaign in California and Texas and Iowa and Idaho. It wouldn't matter at all where you were in the nation, your vote would be equally valuable to the contenders.

If the popular vote reforms were instituted, every single American's vote would be as important as anyone else's. Candidates would have to campaign in California and Texas and Iowa and Idaho.

FTFY. All you'd be doing is replacing one set of states (swing states) with another set (largely populated states). And it's a lot easier for a state to become a swing state than for a state to become heavily populated.

Not that it's going to happen anyway. Popular vote reforms would require a constitutional amendment, and there's no way the required number of states would give up power by voting for it.

dletter:
I'd rather most of the states do the Maine System, giving 2 electoral votes for the state-wide winner, and then 1 EV for the winner of each congressional district.

Deleware, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and perhaps someplace else do it this way too

Mugato:
The majority of Americans voted for a president they didn't get didn't vote at all. There isn't any way you can spin that and say that the system worked the majority of people don't get the government they deserve.

loser_death_spiral: Not that it's going to happen anyway. Popular vote reforms would require a constitutional amendment, and there's no way the required number of states would give up power by voting for it.

You need to read the article.

FTFY. All you'd be doing is replacing one set of states (swing states) with another set (largely populated states). And it's a lot easier for a state to become a swing state than for a state to become heavily populated.

I don't get it. Why does it matter where your vote comes from when you are competing for every vote in the nation?

Now, you could make an argument that these candidates would then economize their efforts by only visiting big cities--where they can contact as many people per visit.

But this would be a bias towards cities, and not towards any particular state. And I am not sure how that is a worse case than having the candidates visit every county twice in only three states.

Nabb1: But this country is not a pure democracy. It's a democratic republic and the entire point of the electoral college is to keep the scales from tipping too far towards a few heavily populated states. the fact that we have a bicameral legislature with one chamber based on population and the other guaranteeing two legislators to every state is evidence of that. If you abolish the electoral college, you may as well abolish the Senate while you're at it.

Um, the electoral college currently does that, but not by design. It makes candidates completely ignore safe states while pandering to swing states. It has nothing to do with size. If California and New York were a lot more purple you can bet your ass that every single nominee would be putting in a huge amount of time and doing a lot of pandering to those states. It does nothing to help keep small states relevant. Even if Wyoming was a swing state nobody would really give a shiat because it has so few electoral votes. Basically what is does is make large state voters worth less, small state voters worth a little more, and swing state voters worth 1000x more than the other two combined. I'm not going to pretend that basing the election on the popular vote would lead candidates to focus more on more populated areas, because it obviously would. But I think that makes a hell of a lot more sense than focusing on whatever random mid to large size states happen to be most evenly divided and ignoring everywhere else, even when everywhere else constitutes states like CA, TX and NY.

If the electoral votes differed from the popular vote of the states in any way I could see making an argument for keeping the system. However, all it does in its current form is essentially put the popular vote through a filter that occasionally farks things up and leads to a result like in 2000.

Since when does a person's vote have anything to do with what a candidate promises to do specifically for their state though? A person votes based on their party, the candidate's personality or the person's pet issue, not what a candidate is going to give to their state if elected. So why does every state have to be artificially represented at the expense of the individual?

The electoral college is a good idea. It helps preserve balance between the larger states and the smaller. Remember that the President presides over the Federal government, which presides over the states.
In effect, the federal government is a government to represent the interests of the various states, not of the individual people. For the people, we have Representatives.

i wouldn't let *any* of the morons in office today , of either party anywhere near a constitutional convention.

ChaoticLimbs: The electoral college is a good idea. It helps preserve balance between the larger states and the smaller.

Again: You are talking about the Senate.

Shaggy_C: Damn right. The crybaby libs still haven't shut up about 2000.

Doesn't "crybaby" imply that whoever's crying is wrong?

Or do you have information about chimpy's performance that have somehow escaped 6 billions of earthicans?

Afternoon_Delight: We need the anchor-baby amendment first.

As a matter-of-fact, Texas should introduce that one...

Hey, don't look at us, man. 99% of us are quite fond of immigrants and think doing it legally should be easier rather than harder. It was California that actually passed the Chinese exclusion act and such xenophobic nonsense.

t3knomanser:

You can take my guns away when you take them away from the government. So long as that colony of criminals is armed, I will be armed.

Fair enough. I never said it would be easy.

godofusa.com:

So you want LA, NY and Chicago to pick the next liberal idiot?

Speaking as one of those who you would consider to be a "liberal idiot"... sure, sounds fine.

As for your anti-Second Amendment drivel, I hope you're never caught in a "gun free zone" where some nut job criminal starts executing people, meanwhile the law-abiding citizen left his gun at home.

Grats on missing the point. I'm sure you're a hit down at the bait 'n tackle shop, though.

nictamer: Shaggy_C: Damn right. The crybaby libs still haven't shut up about 2000.

Doesn't "crybaby" imply that whoever's crying is wrong?

Or do you have information about chimpy's performance that have somehow escaped 6 billions of earthicans?

Don't worry, he does. Fact do have a well known liberal bias, remember.

arkansas: States can apportion their electoral votes any way they want...coin flip if they so choose. But some day, there will be a candidate that New Jersey can't stand that is wildly popular in Texas and Florida. The voters of New Jersey will vote against him in overwhelming numbers.....but their votes won't count because of the overwhelming majorities elsewhere....and their electoral votes will go to the guy they voted overwhelmingly against. No representation.

We are a Federal Republic....it has worked.....dismantle it at your own peril.

your logic has no place here on Fark.

The Dreaded Rear Admiral I fully support abolishing the Electoral College permanently. It's an antiquated relic of a bygone era that has absolutely no value in today's society.

I feel the same way about the Second Amendment, as well. As such, I'll gladly take your flames now, with a side of sour cream. I are ignerent.

Shortened that for you.

The Dread Rear Admiral: Or do you have information about chimpy's performance that have somehow escaped 6 billions of earthicans?

There is evidence that suggests Bush & Co cheated both the 2000 and the 2004 elections.

Refuse to believe it if you want, but the evidence is still there.

Now, you could make an argument that these candidates would then economize their efforts by only visiting big cities--where they can contact as many people per visit. But this would be a bias towards cities, and not towards any particular state.

Except for all the states without large cities. They'll spend all their time in New York, LA, Dallas, Phoenix, etc. and absolutely zero time in Iowa (largest city: Des Moines, population 198K), New Hampshire (largest city: Manchester, population 107K), etc.

And I am not sure how that is a worse case than having the candidates visit every county twice in only three states.

And it's not any better, either. Not a very strong mandate for change.

And if New York or California wants to become relevant, then maybe they shouldn't be so strongly Democratic. Maybe making these parties work for their votes wouldn't be such a bad thing...

All votes over 50% in a state are tossed. Any votes not of the winner are tossed.

If I get more votes I should win... why is that such as horrible concept? Twice now, a president has gotten more votes than the other guy... and lost. It's a joke.

The Dreaded Rear Admiral: nictamer: Shaggy_C: Damn right. The crybaby libs still haven't shut up about 2000.

Doesn't "crybaby" imply that whoever's crying is wrong?

Or do you have information about chimpy's performance that have somehow escaped 6 billions of earthicans?

Don't worry, he does. Fact do have a well known liberal bias, remember.

In a full state recount with all the chad crap, Bush would have lost. If it had been completed in just the counties contested by Gore, Bush would have won. Supreme Court decision didn't matter.

jake3988: All votes over 50% in a state are tossed. Any votes not of the winner are tossed.

If I get more votes I should win... why is that such as horrible concept? Twice now, a president has gotten more votes than the other guy... and lost. It's a joke.

More times than that, actually (1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000). And Bush did get the popular vote in 2004, if you're implying that that was the second time.

Personally, I think we should make the electoral college less directly democratic and more republican. By which I mean hold a separate election in each district and ban anyone with a historical party affiliation from running for elector. Then pay them something analogous to or greater than what they get for jury service, have them take off from their jobs and research the candidates, casting a vote for who they deem best.

phillydrifter:
There is evidence that suggests Bush & Co cheated both the 2000 and the 2004 elections.

Refuse to believe it if you want, but the evidence is still there.

Honestly, I think one would be hard-pressed to set a bar on the amount of numerical trickery considered 'cheating' that wouldn't neatly clothesline both parties in roughly the same manner. They're both horribly corrupt by 'enlightened' standards and marvellously morally pristine by second or third-world standards, just like pretty much all political parties in the first world.