Electoral college - Why DO we use it, anyway?
luvmykids wrote: I understand what it is and how it works, but don't know why we use it. Anyone? Isn't the popular vote the true vote?
PrairieMom replied: yeah! WHY!?!?! 
Calimama replied:
You would think..  I don't understand it either.
gr33n3y3z replied: Its all B.S
Kentuckychick replied:
I don't know!
And it should be choosen "FOR the people BY the people" would imply that the majority rules. The president should always win because he gets the majority of the votes.
I think it's the fact that it doesn't happen often -- very rarely in fact. And until George Bush, who lost by nearly 400,000 votes in the popular and only won because of 500 votes in florida it hadn't happened since 1960 when JFK lost the popular vote but won the presidency.
Personally I think it should only take once to realize the system is flawed and veto it. But I guess my vote doesn't matter 
PrairieMom replied:
 thats one of the things that will never change either .
Calimama replied:
 Way to think positive. 
PrairieMom replied:
it won't. it takes so long to change simple things. i guess I get a little "doom and gloom" when it comes to the government. IMO, the whole entire system start to finished is messed up, and needs change.
Calimama replied:
I agree, it just seems to be getting worse. 
luvmykids replied: I hate that my opinion, individually, doesn't count, unless it happens to coincide with everyone elses How is that a true vote?! 
PrairieMom replied: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College
gr33n3y3z replied:
were the ones to know its BS
I call it as I see it you know me better then that lol
Edited to say not to mean that anyone is dumb in any way just that we realize its BS lol I dont think its coming out to well is it LOL
luvmykids replied:
Ok, after reading the WHOLE dang thing, it makes even less sense
I never even knew about the "electors"....I don't trust those folks 
msoulz replied: I think the electoral college made sense in the days before technology but now that the popular vote can be relatively easily counted, why use the electoral college? That I do not understand!
Hillbilly Housewife replied: Please educate this ignorant anti-political Canuck.
You guys have TWO votes? and one never counts? 
Hillbilly Housewife replied:
So what I get form this is that it really doesn't matter what the country wants, it comes down to these 538 rich people in suits deciding who is going to run the country.
PrairieMom replied:
um... I don't really think so, The 538 just cast the votes that the general population make. My vote tells my 3 dudes how to vote. Thats stupid.
Hillbilly Housewife replied:
OOHHHH... duh. 
Here we call them MPs (members of parliament) who are elected in counties, townships etc... , and there is also MPPs (members of provincial parliament) which are one per province. I guess that would be the equivalent of state reps for you..? But they have nothing to do with the election of our Prime Minister (equivalent to your President) and have nothing to do with casting votes on anyone's behalf. They are only there to represent the people in other matters. NEVER in an election.
Anyways...all this is new to me, because when we have an election, literally the government "freezes" until independant counters count each ballot station's ballots. Literally. None of this representative crap... and only ONE vote count.  It's totally for the people by the people. Very efficient.
Calimama replied:
I wish I could move to Canada. Well minus the weather... 
luvmykids replied: No, no, no....what Tara said. Don't bother trying to understand it, it's a jacked up system anyway Basically, whoever a state votes for overall gets that states electoral votes. It's really only the electoral votes that count, which is why someone can win the popular vote but lose the election....
I love this part:
How is it an indirect element when you have to win the electoral college to win the election?
MommyToAshley replied: If we didn't have the electoral college, then the only states that the candidates would visit would be the largely populated states like California. The diverse views of people in other parts of the country that are less populated and who live under different conditions would not be represented in the vote.. for example, farmers.
Calimama replied:
It all confuses me. That helped though! 
luvmykids replied:
That's part of my confusion though...of course the candidates would probably pay a lot less attention to those groups, but they could still vote, right? I know just about every candidate has come our way, but I've never seen one in person so if they didn't, it wouldn't change my vote, kwim? I hope I don't sound like I'm arguing, I guess I'm still not understanding how the electoral college is more fair than the popular vote
MommyToAshley replied:
Yes, they could still vote. But a few areas of the country would be deciding who the president is.... California, New York, and Florida. For example, California is very liberal and their living conditions are very different from those that live in lets say, Montana. So, if based on the popular vote alone, the views of those in California would definitely outnumber those in Montana. The folks in Monatana have no representation then.
I think the system should be more reflective of the true vote. For example, if a candidate wins California, he gets all 55 electoral votes... that is pretty significant. However, the candidate may have only won the state by a small margin (but still gets all 55 votes). I think he if takes 60% of the votes of that state, then he should get 60% of the 55 electoral votes. This way, we keep the electoral college, everyone is represented but yet it is more true to the popular vote. That's just what I think.... not how it is.
Cece00 replied:
I agree with both your explanation and on how they should revise the system.
luvmykids replied:
Geez, you are SMART! That is a lot more realistic!
Hillbilly Housewife replied:
yeah but that's stupid. That means your individual vote doesn't matter. Whether you're for or against, it's whatever the majority is.
So is this majority state vote the vote that actually determines whether a candidate wins? No, this is the popular vote you're talking about, right?
This is ridiculous. It's a popularity contest, and it doesn't even matter.
***
I have to add though - in the Canadian system... all the seats in parliament can be different parties etc... and a different number of seats, it's not set in stone...it can change every time... and has a HUGE impact on the laws passed etc.
For instance... for any one party to have any more seats than any other party, makes them the "leader", i.e. Prime Minister. BUT, in the House of Commons, where they pass laws, debate about issues etc... because the current leading government (Conservatives) have less than 51% of the total seats in the House (there's like 295 or something like that) they are considered a Minority Government...which in essence means that they can be vetoed by the rest of the seats and cannot just do as they please and pass laws as they see fit.
So really... the government doesn't rule everything without having the people's decisions voiced and heard. If they get vetoed, they get vetoed. AND... if two parties decide to join, in the government, during one of those parties' reign, and the combined new party has over the amount of seats that the current reigning government has... that forces a premature new election.
Complicated I know... but... at least the Tories don't have as much power as they wanted and so we can't become a mini US just yet.... since our Prime Minister tries so hard to adapt us to be more like you guys in terms of health care etc... and the people just won't have it... they keep getting vetoed... awww muffins.
Hillbilly Housewife replied:
That's how it works here. If he gets 60% of 55 electoral votes (we call them ridings...and then Seats in the House of Commons ) then he gets 60% of 55 seats in the House of Commons.
Whoever gets the other 40% of the 55 votes gets 40% of the 55 seats in the House, too. It's a multi-party system! lol
just a note... when a riding is aglomerated or whatever... so is the seat.
Kentuckychick replied:
I agree with this also -- but I think if they would turn over and just say the "majority" wins it would work much easier!
The reason I agree though with what you say is that if the electoral college ran the way you suggested George Bush would not have become president in 2000. Florida had a population of over 15 million people at the time and he only won the state by 500 votes. Florida has 25 electoral votes (one of the larger numbers) which would have meant essentially Gore would have gained nearly half those. But of course at the time and still now it didn't matter so the state went to George Bush (only after they counted/recounted/rerecounted all those hanging chads and dangling doodads of course!)
In the popular vote Gore won by over 300,000 votes
Cece00 replied:
rocky, i love your new sig.
Calimama replied:
Me too!!
Hillbilly Housewife replied:
Thank Crystal!
luvmykids replied:
Exactly my problem
And yes, basically, whoever has the state votes wins...they have to have a minimum of 270 state (electoral) votes...and all the votes in one state only go to one candidate. Sounds worse and worse the more I try to explain it, doesn't it?!
Which is why, for example, Tara and I were complaining....she, as a democrat, could vote for Hillary but if the state overall votes for Romney, he gets the total of her states electoral votes. The reason it's not ideal is b/c as Rachel has mentioned, Gore won the popular votes by a landslide but Bush won the electoral votes. (Which, personally, I'm glad for but that is beside the point LOL)
MommyToAshley replied:
This is the first time in history (at least I think) that the popular vote would have elected a different president than the electoral votes. Now, I'm surprised there isn't more of a movement for change in our electoral system.
With that being said, your vote DOES count. If everyone that didn't vote because they are a democrat in a republican state (or vice-versa), would get out and vote, then they may find out that their vote does count. Just look at what happened in the primary yesterday... Hillary won (even though she was predicted by EVERY poll to lose) simply because more women that support her got out and voted. This is the first time that the number of women voting out-numbered the number of men. So, regardless of who you are voting for... I hope you vote. I personally hate the polls because I think it prevents people from voting based on their conclusions, but that's a completely different thread.
Hillbilly Housewife replied:
This could be the case also for other candidates, if you relate it to the other hillary thread, and apply religion.
jcc64 replied: I like your idea too, Dee Dee. NY always goes democratic in a national election, and it feels like the only states that get any attention at all are the swing states (well, it doesn't feel like that, it IS like that). Once the state has been "won", my vote is essentially unimportant in the electoral college system.
luvmykids replied:
I could never not vote, b/c then I wouldn't have the right to complain
But you have a point, I know many people who are frustrated with our state in general and have quit voting, on all levels because they feel like it doesn't matter...if ALL those people voted, it just might.
If nothing else, I will vote in spite of the polls just as a show of rebellion
MommyToAshley replied:
PrairieMom replied:
I could but...
PrairieMom replied: So, basically, if you don't live in a swing state your vote doesn't matter at all. I may as well not vote. If I go or not, no matter who I vote for my vote will be for the republican, because I live in a republican state. Its about enough to make me want to move to Iowa, which really is less than an hour away from me.
I read somewhere that the electoral college was put into place to give states with smaller populations some power so candidates wouldn't just focus on larger states like NY and CA, but really, how does giving CA 55 votes and SD 3 votes give me any power at all?
I just don't really feel represented.
|
