A big question for everybody

I was listening to the debate the other day on the state of Colorado wanting to change their electoral vote system for voting for the Presidential election. If you guys don't know, let me just fill you in real quick, when I candidate wins a state they win all that states electoral votes. Colorado wants to change the state system to 5 electoral votes for the winner and 4 for the loser. So in one way Colorado would become less desirable to campaign for as you have so little to gain over the loser and you could spend your money in other states that are winner take all. Makes sense, but, if Colorado was not alone and every state had the same system, candidates would have to respect and campaign nationwide instead of just in the states they feared losing.

Here in Michigan and in Ohio and Pennsylvania we have had all the top players in both campaigns visit us almost daily the past few months. If you live in most states outside our area, you have seen very little of the candidates (except in Florida of course). So what do you guys think? Should we change the system to make them work harder?

I personally think that the electoral college should be junked entirely. It was set up in colonial days when they did not have the technology and communications that we have today. I think each and every American who votes should have their vote count by the popular vote numbers being the vote count that directly gives the winner the presidency. With the electoral college we have states where 49% of the voters in the state are seeing their vote thrown away as the winner takes all the electoral votes regardless of margin. No electoral college would mean every single vote would count 100% toward who would win the office. Now wouldn't that motivate more people to vote? Wouldn't that make everyone, regardless of personal political views, feel like they were part of the process of choosing their president? I think that would do much good for this country.

Rich, I don't know if and or when you will move this thread, but with just 5 days until we vote for president I thought it was a solid non partisan topic to talk about. E

Not to be an ass or anything, but....

Is the BOI the appropriate place for this post????

I am all for junking the electoral college, or splitting the votes, like maine does and colorado wants to. One vote should be worth one vote, not worth more in a small state, and less in a heavily populated state.


Of course, the small states will never ratify a constitutional amendment. So it'll have to be at the state level, which could take ages to implement.

Originally posted by sirenofthestorm
I am all for junking the electoral college, or splitting the votes, like maine does and colorado wants to. One vote should be worth one vote, not worth more in a small state, and less in a heavily populated state.

Abolishing the EC would be unequivocally contrarian to every known source of insight into the Founding Father's ideology for producing and ratifying the United States Constitution.

The inclusion of the EC was essential in the debate to gain the support of the smaller states during ratification. The EC guarantees that each vote is equal and "not worth more in a small state, and less in a heavily populated state". It's whole purpose is to ensure that a single large state doesn't lend a lopsided slant to the national election.

The argument as to how each state should divide its electorate is completely a state's right issue. With that said, I do not believe Colorado's proposal will with stand up to judicial review, even if it passes. It is written to become effective immediately, including the current election. That essentially amounts to changing the rules during the contest.

Chris, you are being an ass. If you read my post you would have seen that I specificialy told Rich that I knew this would get moved and that he would be doing it shortly. Sadly, the most important thing in this country right now is less important than selling a couple reptiles. No, the BOI is not the right place, this is much more improtant than the BOI, BUT that is the only forum on this site that gets any hits. Everyone in the reptile business whines about government but nobody does anything to make changes.

Evan, THANK YOU!!!!!!! finally, someone who doesn't just want to complain and whine but not show an iota of civic duty.




And CAV, that just isn't true. Votes count more in small states like maine and rhode island because they have disproportionate representation in the electoral college relative to their population size. Since they (small states) have the constitutional minimum of representatives (2), adding the two votes from the senate seats gives them a total of 4 electoral votes.
Now the senate-based electoral votes don't add too much weight to obviously populous states like california, texas, or new york. But they give small states more power in the electoral college than the number of people that live there. Did I explain it well enough now?

And I think we can all agree that the whole idea behind assigning electors [b]at the time[/Bold] the Constitution was drawn up was to select the most respected, educated men from each district and have them debate which candidate would be the best President. Its rare now that the debate style of the electoral college is left behind for party-appointed electors, but it wasn't a rare occurance if electoral votes were split between the candidates, before.

Now that literacy is extremely high, I honestly don't see many illiterate farmers and merchants like there were in the eighteenth century. The only reason I can see that people don't vote now is that they're apathetic, its not a priority. Apathy is not a reason to keep around a relic like the electoral college, in my opinion. The Constitution is a living document, not frozen in stone, or else slaves would still only count for 3/5 of freedmen. I say keep the good parts, change the outdated.

Originally posted by sirenofthestorm
And CAV, that just isn't true.

Um, actually it is not only "true" but also factual. The Federalist Papers discussed the details quite nicely.

Originally posted by sirenofthestorm
Votes count more in small states like maine and rhode island because they have disproportionate representation in the electoral college relative to their population size. Since they (small states) have the constitutional minimum of representatives (2), adding the two votes from the senate seats gives them a total of 4 electoral votes.
Now the senate-based electoral votes don't add too much weight to obviously populous states like california, texas, or new york. But they give small states more power in the electoral college than the number of people that live there. Did I explain it well enough now?

You just strengthened my point with your justification. Contrary to your personal interpretation, THAT is exactly how the framers wanted it! Each and every state has equal representation under the two senator rule. THAT is exactly the reason that there are two houses of the legislature; one based on population, and one that is equal. The number of votes in the EC is a mirror image of the legislative branch. Equal representation regardless of size was a key compromise during the Constitutional Conventions.

Originally posted by sirenofthestorm
I say keep the good parts, change the outdated.

When that is warranted, I agree. Unfortunately, the inability of the general public to grasp the concept for, and the reasoning behind the EC doesn't constitute a "need."

Originally posted by CAV
When that is warranted, I agree. Unfortunately, the inability of the general public to grasp the concept for, and the reasoning behind the EC doesn't constitute a "need."

Heh, that was nicely said.

Another side benefit to the EC is protecting the rest of the states from an easily influenced population center. If votes were purely majority, candidates would spend all their time in big cities, trying to influence the urban population which, stereotypically, has a pack mentality and is easily influenced. Hilary Clinton is proof of this effect in action.

If someone campaigns in big cities to the largely minority and largely undereducated people groups, you would get a ton of votes that would be pack mentality activity based not on who was right for office, but "what's in it for me". This is a desperate demographic, and is easily preyed upon.,

So you just skipped over the whole evolution of the electoral college from a debate between educated and respected members of the communities, to prevent an unruly uneducated public from totally overrunning the government with mob passions, to a position gained only by party loyalty.
The even headed, educated debate was (and is) more important than the semantics, in my opinion.

And what federalist papers are you talking about? can I get numbers please?

And CAV, yes there is supposed to be equal represenation IN CONGRESS, that's what a republican form of government is. But, I thought it was a democratic republic, meaning that we get to elect our representatives, except of course for the president, who we elect represenatives to elect.

Originally posted by Mister Internet
If someone campaigns in big cities to the largely minority and largely undereducated people ... This is a desperate demographic, and is easily preyed upon.,

And I'm not even going to go there....