Entirely up to Nebraska and none of the rest of the country's business.

They have decided to divide their vote and I respect that and would respect that if it decided an election against my candidate. If they want to switch back that is fine also and would respect it if it decided the election against my candidate.

If you are an Electoral College supporter, as I am, then you have to respect how each state decides for themselves even if it helps the other side.

They should definitely do this, because if their state did't split votes we'd be talking about President-elect McCain today.

Let them. Now lets see how much love/earmarks/pork/money Nebraska gets from the administration and Congress the next four years. I'm all for 'we all got to get along so we all can get along', but 'pissy' gets the pimp hand.

Good - do it. I love it when the people in power try to change all the rules to benefit them - and then whine and cry as soon as they are voted out and now they're on the outside looking in. Remember all that complaining the GOP did about filibustering a few years ago? Yeah...get ready to see a lot of filibustering from them now that they're a minority. They spend 8 years trying to get more power for the President and VP...I'll bet they're starting to re-think that one as well.

I love the time when the GOP wanted to have California split its electoral votes like this. (Hell, they probably still do.)

arkansas: Entirely up to Nebraska and none of the rest of the country's business.

They have decided to divide their vote and I respect that and would respect that if it decided an election against my candidate. If they want to switch back that is fine also and would respect it if it decided the election against my candidate.

If you are an Electoral College supporter, as I am, then you have to respect how each state decides for themselves even if it helps the other side.

Actually, I don't think it should be up to the states or the parties. The electoral college should consist of former presidents, governors, senators, and cabinet members who pass a extremely difficult entry test.

The electoral college is supposed to be the guard against the mass of stupidity that democracy can turn into. The selection of Palin after the Couric interview should have resulted in the electoral college saying "We will never let you into office, drop her from the ticket." Or, when Bush ran for office again: "No. You have proved incompetent. Republicans, select someone else or face an automatic loss."

then omaha should secede and join iowa, kicking steve king's radical ass out of congress!

Bad Idea. I wish more states would divide electoral votes proportionally. It would give 3rd parties a much greater chance of showing up on the electoral college radar AND it would reduce the importance of swing states.

However, as others have said, it should be a state issue. We can still call them fools though if they do it.

jerry2a: get ready to see a lot of filibustering from them now that they're a minority.

they have been a minority for two years.

sloppy shoes: The electoral college is supposed to be the guard against the mass of stupidity that democracy can turn into

no. that is not the purpose of the Electoral College.

FlashHarry: then omaha should secede and join iowa,

It's always windy in Omaha because Iowa Sucks...

/sorry had to do it
//Omaha resident for 12yrs
///not a safe-haven baby (or Safe-Haven-Bingo winner)

cmunic8r99:
sloppy shoes: The electoral college is supposed to be the guard against the mass of stupidity that democracy can turn into

no. that is not the purpose of the Electoral College.



From this Link (new window): Additionally, in the Federalist Papers No. 10, James Madison made his famed argument against "an interested and overbearing majority" (77), and the "mischiefs of faction" (78) in an electoral system. He defined a faction as "a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority of minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community" (78). Republican government (federalism, as opposed to direct democracy), with its varied distribution of voter rights and powers, would prevent this. Madison wrote in Federalist No. 10 that "the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican...government...is [the] circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded...

sloppy shoes: Republican government

The Electoral College is definitely responsible for that.

HansensDisease: sloppy shoes: Republican government

The Electoral College is definitely responsible for that.

I Lol'd but it refers to federalism, not the Republican party.

sloppy shoes: arkansas: Entirely up to Nebraska and none of the rest of the country's business.

They have decided to divide their vote and I respect that and would respect that if it decided an election against my candidate. If they want to switch back that is fine also and would respect it if it decided the election against my candidate.

If you are an Electoral College supporter, as I am, then you have to respect how each state decides for themselves even if it helps the other side.

Actually, I don't think it should be up to the states or the parties. The electoral college should consist of former presidents, governors, senators, and cabinet members who pass a extremely difficult entry test.

The electoral college is supposed to be the guard against the mass of stupidity that democracy can turn into. The selection of Palin after the Couric interview should have resulted in the electoral college saying "We will never let you into office, drop her from the ticket." Or, when Bush ran for office again: "No. You have proved incompetent. Republicans, select someone else or face an automatic loss."

Tyranny of those already in the establishment? I thought the US was designed to prevent against oligarchies, or in your suggestion, an oligarchy/geniocracy combo.

A geniocracy is sort of a good idea but is has more cons than pros. Stupid or illiterate or plain apathetic people deserve a say in how they're represented too. In any case, after the Couric interview, voters themselves rejected Palin.

Bush should have been turfed in 2004, but it was a complex situation. In wartime, people are less willing to take risks. The full extent of Bush's incompetence was not, at that point, discernable by most people, which represents a failure by the media and Bush's opponents in scrutinizing and questioning the White House.

A geniocracy is sort of a good idea but is it has more cons than pros

FTFM. I think my lack of observation skillz disqualify me from the geniocracy, oh noes.

/I can is has govt plz?
//YOU TALK LIKE A LOLCAT. DENIED!

sloppy shoes: James Madison made his famed argument against "an interested and overbearing majority" (77), and the "mischiefs of faction" (78) in an electoral system. He defined a faction as "a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority of minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community" (78)..

Now what does that remind me of?

Ah yes, Prop 8.

I actually have an already prepared photoshop of Madison facepalming that I made some time ago, just in case Fark got a little too erudite.

bobbette:
Tyranny of those already in the establishment? I thought the US was designed to prevent against oligarchies, or in your suggestion, an oligarchy/geniocracy combo.

A geniocracy is sort of a good idea but is has more cons than pros. Stupid or illiterate or plain apathetic people deserve a say in how they're represented too. In any case, after the Couric interview, voters themselves rejected Palin.

Bush should have been turfed in 2004, but it was a complex situation. In wartime, people are less willing to take risks. The full extent of Bush's incompetence was not, at that point, discernable by most people, which represents a failure by the media and Bush's opponents in scrutinizing and questioning the White House.

See my above post about Madison's argument. There were certainly concerns about an "inbred" oligarchy. But the point is to some extent inbreed. You want to inbreed respect for the constitution. You want to inbreed certain values. You want change to be slow. You don't want a slight majority to take the rights of others (such as marriage) away from a population.

You will never have a perfect government. But the point of the electoral college was partially to protect against the passions of the masses that aren't really thought out but played well in pamphlets (soundbites) and town yellers (Bill O'Reilly).

bobbette: Now what does that remind me of?

Ah yes, Prop 8.

I actually have an already prepared photoshop of Madison facepalming that I made some time ago, just in case Fark got a little too erudite.

Exactly. That was the point of a partially inbred government- to rest some authority with people who don't put their passions ahead of their logic. Now that will never be perfect since you also get dread scott and other decisions, but it balances out the power overall.

sloppy shoes: I Lol'd but it refers to federalism, not the Republican party.

Yeah, I know... I just loathe the EC.

Since we're stuck with it, the electors should be chosen based on the majority vote in the district that the elector is supposedly "representing". It would make the popular vote count for more while still preserving the disproportionate numerical advantage that the less populous states got as bonus for ratifying the Constitution in the first place.

HansensDisease: sloppy shoes: I Lol'd but it refers to federalism, not the Republican party.

Yeah, I know... I just loathe the EC.

Since we're stuck with it, the electors should be chosen based on the majority vote in the district that the elector is supposedly "representing". It would make the popular vote count for more while still preserving the disproportionate numerical advantage that the less populous states got as bonus for ratifying the Constitution in the first place.

Yeah, but as I stated above, the electoral college was about defending against the tyranny of the majority and providing some limits against raw popularity contests.

For the same reason US Senators were originally elected by the House.

Simple majority was responsible for electing Hitler.

So you people wanting the president picked by simple majority want the same as the naziss.

How in Frank's name was that passed in the first place? Considering the nature of Nebraska, it was never, ever, going to be to the benefit of the GOP candidate. The best it was going to do was split and let the Democrats pick up a seat or two. As I recall, the Nebraska Unicameral has not had a non-GOP majority in its history. How did it come to pass?

"It really is a new day in America when he even picks up an electoral vote in Nebraska."

Funny thing is that Nebraska was set up to promote progressive policies. That's the only reason the state exists.

Generation_D: Simple majority was responsible for electing Hitler.

False

sloppy shoes: For the same reason US Senators were originally elected by House Governors.

FTFY

sloppy shoes: From this Link (new window)

your point was not about the College, though. your original post concluded with Some after-the-fact judgment about the quality of a selection, not anything close to what Madison had in mind.

at best, it was disingenuous.

Mr. Anon: sloppy shoes: For the same reason US Senators were originally elected by House Governors.

FTFY

I looked it up- we were both wrong. It was State legislators.

Generation_D: Simple majority was responsible for electing Hitler.

So you people wanting the president picked by simple majority want the same as the naziss.

Hahahahaha! Stay in school.

sloppy shoes: Mr. Anon: sloppy shoes: For the same reason US Senators were originally elected by House Governors.

FTFY

I looked it up- we were both wrong. It was State legislators.

seriously? wow, I distinctly remember that it was Governors.

cmunic8r99: sloppy shoes: From this Link (new window)

your point was not about the College, though. your original post concluded with Some after-the-fact judgment about the quality of a selection, not anything close to what Madison had in mind.

at best, it was disingenuous.

Umm...no.

Madison had in mind the quality of the candidate- otherwise you couldn't analyze whether or not that electorate had made a good choice. If the electorate elects Sarah Palin based on her looks and their partisanship rather than acknowledging she had demonstrated almost zero knowledge of how the government operates, the electoral college would be obliged to act.

Mr. Anon: sloppy shoes: Mr. Anon: sloppy shoes: For the same reason US Senators were originally elected by House Governors.

FTFY

I looked it up- we were both wrong. It was State legislators.

seriously? wow, I distinctly remember that it was Governors.

The 17th amendment allows the state legislatures to "empower the executive branch to appoint a temporary senator." But the original power to elect was up the legislature in general.

(If in doubt, most of US power rests with the legislature, the most diverse body of the government. That is why all the executive power that has been accumulated over the past 80 years is scary.)

Link (new window)

WA state should be split up into the Seattle area and the rest of the state for the electoral college. It really is two different worlds, why lump them together?

TX and CA should be split between North and South. ND & SD should be merged. AK should lose its status as state.

I love the symbolism of that. The heart of the heartland, the home of the college world series - is secretly full of liberal elitist unamericans that hate small towns etc.

Here's a great idea: lets get rid of the electoral college so that next time there's a 2000 election situation it's a nationwide recount and the whole thing devolves into anarchy and civil war.

What a bunch of dumbassery. Even with proportional voting: imagine if we were dealing with nationwide fights for any district within 1 or 2% instead of having a single fight over a single state. Resources would be spread so thin that the system would be waaaaaaay too ripe for abuse

Here is the problem with getting rid of the electoral college:

It would be unfair to have states regulate their own voting and have the majority vote decide the president. Elections law would have to be federalized.


Why?

For example lets say I was a Rep. governor of a Democratic state like Arnold of California.

What I could do is pass lots of restrictive voting laws. I could say no felons could vote and you have to show three forms of ID to register and vote.

By this I could reduce the vote of my state by millions of votes.

This would lead to huge voter manipulation by governors.

I could do the opposite too if I was a governor of a state of mostly the same party on me. I could reduce registration limits to allow anyone to vote on the same day by just showing up to increase my voting numbers for the party I wanted to win.


People really should think about this problem before the knee jerk reaction of a popular vote for the president.

cmunic8r99:

Now I should add that the Constitution does allow the states to select their electors however they want, but I think that is foolish.

The electors should be in a position to deny a candidate based on unsuitability, among the other advantages of the electoral college system.

jerry2a: Remember all that complaining the GOP did about filibustering a few years ago? Yeah...get ready to see a lot of filibustering from them

Get ready? Dude, this congress set a new RECORD for filibusters. They broke the old record from the LAST time the GOP was a minority.

WHY DOES NOBODY KNOW THIS??????

Corvus: Here is the problem with getting rid of the electoral college:

It would be unfair to have states regulate their own voting and have the majority vote decide the president. Elections law would have to be federalized.


Why?

For example lets say I was a Rep. governor of a Democratic state like Arnold of California.

What I could do is pass lots of restrictive voting laws. I could say no felons could vote and you have to show three forms of ID to register and vote.

By this I could reduce the vote of my state by millions of votes.

This would lead to huge voter manipulation by governors.

I could do the opposite too if I was a governor of a state of mostly the same party on me. I could reduce registration limits to allow anyone to vote on the same day by just showing up to increase my voting numbers for the party I wanted to win.


People really should think about this problem before the knee jerk reaction of a popular vote for the president.

This is the first time anyone has clearly explained to me an argument validating the need for an electoral college. I think it makes alot more sense now. Thanks

Corvus: People really should think about this problem before the knee jerk reaction of a popular vote for the president.

I agree. Democracy is sooooo overrated.

Dubai Vol: jerry2a: Remember all that complaining the GOP did about filibustering a few years ago? Yeah...get ready to see a lot of filibustering from them

Get ready? Dude, this congress set a new RECORD for filibusters. They broke the old record from the LAST time the GOP was a minority.

WHY DOES NOBODY KNOW THIS??????

Because the media actually leans pretty right and doesn't criticize the party and consistently focuses on the Democratic failings rather than the Republicans.

The Democrats are already being blamed for a failed bailout bill when it was the Republican administration who abused it (and the Republicans in Congress who pushed for less mandates of control over the issue).

I mean, why do we still talk about Clinton "scandals" when Bush has had enough scandals to fill 8 presidential terms. I mean- WMD's, no-bid contracts, Alberto Gonzalez, Dick Cheney, Condi's term as Sec of State, Katrina Response, etc...

Nothing surprising in this. The Party at disadvantage wants disadvantage erased. Reminds of when I lived in Colorado (Red back then) and some group from California came out to Denver trying to push a ballot measure or something to split up Colorado's electoral votes by district.

I think the general consensus was that if they were so serious about it, then why not start in California?

Corvus: It would be unfair to have states regulate their own voting and have the majority vote decide the president. Elections law would have to be federalized.

Oh, I missed this statement. Look. If you're going to get rid of the electoral college, you're going to make election laws federal, that goes hand in hand.

That nullifies your whole argument.

If you're gonna say we're a democracy, let's be a democracy, not a republic with strong democratic ideals.

Everyone that was happy with 2000 and 2004 results, who didn't criticize the EC then.. has zero right to criticize the electoral college now. Zero. And is a facist for even trying.

Dubai Vol: Get ready? Dude, this congress set a new RECORD for filibusters. They broke the old record from the LAST time the GOP was a minority.

WHY DOES NOBODY KNOW THIS??????

Simple. Reid lets them say "we're filibustering", and takes the bill off the table. He doesn't force them to stand up and read phone books all night. No backbone, no media savvy, no sense of drama. Scurries around in the shadows like he's still in the minority. We'll see if he's any better with 56-57 Senators. I doubt it.

How in the hell is your federal election system a state matter???

Just as no one american's vote should should be treated differently than any other's, all states should follow the same rules when it comes to the federal elections. It should really be just a condition of membership in the Union like any other.

Fine, let your states determine social, fiscal or any other issue but really the election of the federal government is a federal matter.

Either all states should be winner take all EC votes or all states should split their EC votes.

organizm: Corvus: It would be unfair to have states regulate their own voting and have the majority vote decide the president. Elections law would have to be federalized.

Oh, I missed this statement. Look. If you're going to get rid of the electoral college, you're going to make election laws federal, that goes hand in hand.

That nullifies your whole argument.

If you're gonna say we're a democracy, let's be a democracy, not a republic with strong democratic ideals.

But we are a Republic.

And electing people who then elect a president is very much like a democratic Republic.

I agree if you did this elections would have to be nationalized, would people really want to make this much of a big step to getting rid of our federalism form of government?

Gosling: I love the time when the GOP wanted to have California split its electoral votes like this. (Hell, they probably still do.)

I think it's a more representative way to elect a president, other than ditching the EC completely.

Lawnchair: Dubai Vol: Get ready? Dude, this congress set a new RECORD for filibusters. They broke the old record from the LAST time the GOP was a minority.

WHY DOES NOBODY KNOW THIS??????

Simple. Reid lets them say "we're filibustering", and takes the bill off the table. He doesn't force them to stand up and read phone books all night. No backbone, no media savvy, no sense of drama. Scurries around in the shadows like he's still in the minority. We'll see if he's any better with 56-57 Senators. I doubt it.

So Reid was letting the Republicans get all the benefits of a filibuster, without the work? No wonder they did it so often.

The winner takes all stuff is retarded in any state.

Lawnchair: Dubai Vol: Get ready? Dude, this congress set a new RECORD for filibusters. They broke the old record from the LAST time the GOP was a minority.

WHY DOES NOBODY KNOW THIS??????

Simple. Reid lets them say "we're filibustering", and takes the bill off the table. He doesn't force them to stand up and read phone books all night. No backbone, no media savvy, no sense of drama. Scurries around in the shadows like he's still in the minority. We'll see if he's any better with 56-57 Senators. I doubt it.

This was my complaint back when the Republicans talked about the nuclear option to combat Democratic filibusters. Why not just make the minority party actually "filibuster" instead of this procedural BS?

My second point to your post is that I think Hillary will wait until dust settles on the Senate elections and re-counts and then will start making a play for Reid's chair.

The entire country is shifting for the better and as an Omaha native, I'm not surprised this state is still trying to move backwards.