Eliminate the electoral college. There are no good arguments for it.

downstairs: I get his point, but its just a silly math experiment.

Realistically, looking at the polls, I think McCain has to turn 10/10 specific states now leaning Obama. 10/10. Not 9/10, 8/10. All of them.

Politics, policy, history aside... the pure probability of this happening is crazy. Even if there were a huge October surprise, you have to believe Obama wouldn't instantly lose 10/10 states. Even if Obama *quit* the race, I bet the Dems would still take 1 or 2 out of 10.

Also, the imbalance in the electoral college helps Obama this year. 538 does a great job on this. Basically, Obama is outperforming the national polls in enough states to get him 270 EV. That means if all the polls came down evenly to a dead tie in the national numbers, Obama would still have a lead in enough states to win 270.

Atillathepun: DamnYankees: Eliminate the electoral college. There are no good arguments for it.

Recounts. What if the vote is a handful of thousand apart. Do you recount the whole nation?

Not sure - how do other countries do it? Interesting point, though.

Atillathepun: DamnYankees: Eliminate the electoral college. There are no good arguments for it.

Recounts. What if the vote is a handful of thousand apart. Do you recount the whole nation?

Although, now that I think about it...we manage to count the initial ballots in just a few hours, basically. Why would it be so hard to recount them all?

downstairs: First of all, its tracked the popular vote, what 90% or more of the time? And when it doesn't, the popular vote is so close that a coin-flip really would be just as "fair".

Ok. That's not really an argument for it, but ok.

downstairs: But most importantly it allows for a more diverse representation of the people. People in highly populated areas tend to think the same (and vice versa). It keeps that in check.

There's no evidence of this. And, this is an argument? People in big cities think alike, so their votes should count less? Really?

downstairs: I believe the first, quick count is highly inaccurate. If a Reagan blows out a Mondale by millions, it doesn't matter. But if it comes down to 1,000 votes.... chances are its *actually* wildly up or down from that.

Then you'd be talking a massive, audited, perfect counting of the votes.

Ok. So lets take a few days or a week and recount them if necessary. I don't like the idea of being fat and happy with a currently lazy counting system.

downstairs: Can you believe the shenanigans in the backwoods counties? Every precient in the country would need a GOP and dem representitive, lawyers, cops. Every one.

Because if just 2-3 of them are not under perfect security... there goes the election again.

Yeah, ok - so we'll have a rep from each party. Lets scrounge em up.

If this is really that important, as I think it is, we should do it right.

downstairs: DamnYankees: There's no evidence of this. And, this is an argument? People in big cities think alike, so their votes should count less? Really?

Essentially, yes.

Show evidence.

downstairs: Its an opinion. My evidence is the lengthier version of the opion a couple of posts up.

(Snip)

So you don't care about fairness in voting or the "one man one vote" idea.

Your call.

downstairs: Its more complicated than that. Why don't we just vote in all laws by national referendum? Same idea.

Because its really impracticle and we delegate to representatives who can learn more and make informed decisions.

There's no comparison to the electoral college.

downstairs: What is your rationale for one-person, one-vote? And its gotta be better than "just because."

Every person is fundamentally equal in their democratic voice, and no one deserves any stronger than another. To do otherwise is a caste system.

downstairs: The one that comes from being in a democracy? We're not.

Oy, you're one of those. Nevermind.

downstairs: The whole point of the electoral college was for the presidency to be decided by a mixture of state-based and popular-based systems

Yeah, that's why its retarded. We stopped giving rights to "land" a long time ago in most other areas of life.

FarkinHostile: DamnYankees

Oy, you're one of those.

What, people who are correct? Because he is.

The United States is a Federal Constitutional Republic. Commonly called a Democratic REPUBLIC. We have representatives who vote for us. We vote for them. That is a republic, not a democracy.

Democracy
Republic
Constitution

None of them are mutually exclusive, and we are all three.

FarkinHostile: I'm sorry, but we are classified as a Republic. Hence, Congressmen, Senators and the electoral college. We elect representatives who vote on issues for us. We are not a democracy, or Al Gore would have won the 2000 election.

We are a Republic. We're also a democracy. We are also constitutionally bound.

Again, not mutually exclusive, and you've said nothing to prove otherwise.

FarkinHostile: So refute me. You were the one saying we are a democracy. Prove it. It will take you about 5 seconds to find what our classification is.

First of all, is there an official classification book I'm not aware of? You are using the words from Wikipedia - if there is some UN or CIA classification system, point me to it.

Secondly, the form of our government is republican. IOW, we are a Republic. I never said we weren't. We have to draw a distinction between the structure of government, the method of populating government, and the channels to exercise government power.

The structure of our government is republican. People populate government who make decisions on behalf of the rest of us and do so in a collective manner. There is monarch.

The method of populating government is a democracy. We choose our leaders. There are other ways of doing this in a republic (think of Ancient Rome), and there are also democracies which aren't structured like a Republic (Athens or the UK).

The foundation of our legal system and the boundaries of government power emanates from Constitution. Other countries do it differently.

I think these are the ways to think of these instutitions, and I see them in no ways as mutually exclusive. Now tell me where I'm wrong.

FarkinHostile: So you agree with me. Good. Our classification as a republic, not a democracy is the only thing I commented on.

What is this "classification" you are talking about? You speak as though this is a Platonic form or something.

FarkinHostile: What would you call it? Our system nominclature? A rose by any other name....

I call it a description. We are a republic. We are a democracy. Just like I'm both a male and an American. You can be classified in different ways.

FarkinHostile: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all."

Yes. So? I already agreed we're a republic.

I_Approve_Of_This_Message: DamnYankees: Eliminate the electoral college. There are no good arguments for it.

Good luck getting two thirds of the states to ratify that one.

Don't need it. Just need enough states to pass a National Popular Vote Act.

adamgreeney: Democracy: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

Yeah. That describes America.

oregoncat: DamnYankees: Eliminate the electoral college. There are no good arguments for it.

Well, there is that darn Constitution paperwork to deal with...

That's not an argument.