I don't like the electoral college.

Danalana wrote: I get that some states are larger and get more electoral votes. But come on...if a candidate wins more states than the other, shouldn't that candidate win? I mean, California has 55 electoral votes..a candidate can just win the "big" states and win the election...even if the other candidate won considerably more states. yeah yeah, I know....I'm about to get the speech about how the electoral college is more of an equal representation, yada yada yada...I just really don't like it. And it really doesn't seem like an equal representation to me.

msoulz replied: I hear you Dana - McCain stopped stomping around Michigan because he didn't feel he could catch our electoral votes. Doesn't seem very nice to me, but from a business perspective I totally get it. Apparently we are an all or nothing state. I think some states split their electoral votes and I recently read that a handful of states cast all of their votes to whomever has the most votes already - but as social science and political science were my worst subjects in school I could be dead wrong!

PrairieMom replied: This has been my major complaint. As a blue girl in a red state, I just dont feel that my vote counts. Not to mention that we only have3 measly electoral votes, so my vote really really doesn't count. I feel like it would be way more fair if the popular vote won.

Crystalina replied:
That's the way it should be!! If that were the case Hillary would be the candidate.

luvmykids replied: I've been trying to research it off and on and can't come up with any good reason for the stupid electoral college. I wish it was the popular vote too

Danalana replied: THIS JUST IN.....
The electoral college people notified me that they don't care if I like it or not.

luvmykids replied:
Really?! I got a much different response:

Thank you for your concern. Since you are so terribly inconvenienced by the electoral college, we are pleased to inform you that you are free to abide by the results of the popular vote, should they please you, so long as you understand that it has no actual bearing on anything beyond the little world you live in.
Sincerely,
The Electoral College

Danalana replied: Ooooooooh, that's good stuff!

Kentuckychick replied: Yeah... I don't like it either... especially since it's the only reason GW got elected into office in the first place

punkeemunkee'smom replied: Each state gets the same number of votes in the Electoral College as they have Congressional seats....Still don't like it-just an interesting tid-bit of info....Thank you 2nd grade Social Studies!

luvmykids replied:
Which is why I hate it even more....CA gets to decide for the rest of the country

redchief replied:
Then we'll have to declare CA over-populated and move about half the population elsewhere to even things up, then re-align the electoral college.

Or we could do without the electoral college altogether and wait for a month after each election to find out who our president is.

Kentuckychick replied:


Most often (all but twice I think -- one being the 2000 election) the electoral college vote lines up with the popular vote. It's when it doesn' (like in '00 when we had the whole Florida debacle) that people really question it.

Truly with the way things went in '00 Gore should have won. They should have just thrown Florida's electoral votes out completely because of all the dangling chads and hanging ding dongs and just awarded the presidency to the winner of the popular vote (by a landslide), Gore... especially since at that point Bush had already conceded.

But I digress.

I'm betting this year Obama will have won both by electoral college and popular vote.

redchief replied: I think if you look at tonight's election (and most presidential elections for that matter - 2000 being an exception instead of the rule), you see why the electoral college is so important to our form of government. In the popular vote Barack Obama will win by 9% - 11%, which, while a majority, doesn't SOUND like a clear edict. The electoral college will show a landslide victory, as expected, and this should unify the country to the extent that is possible.

Besides, I was serious about the counting of all of those ballots. If we elected our president by popular vote, while it's indeed possible, it would take a very long time to count all of those absentee and provisional ballots (remember it took 36 days to clear up the example KentuckyChick brought up, and that was a single state).

Now, I'm going to listen with a different ear to my president elect.

punkeemunkee'smom replied: There have been 17 elections where the electoral college and the popular vote did not align.

redchief replied:
...and three in which the winner of the electoral college did not win the popular vote.

MommyToAshley replied: If you think your vote doesn't matter now, then try getting rid of the electoral collge. The candidates certainly wouldn't be visiting your state or mine... unless you live in California, Texas, New York or Florida. Those four states have a large enough population that they would determine the next President of the United States and all the geography in between wouldn't matter. I am sure you would agree that the needs, concerns, and views of those in California are much different than those in Kansas. Therefore, I think we do need the electorial collge to make sure all parts of the country have some say.

However, I think there needs to be some reform. I think I have spoken about this before here. The electorial collge should be more reflective of the popular vote for each particular state. For example, Ohio has 20 electorial votes. If 51% of the people in Ohio vote for one person, they still get all 20 electorial votes. I believe that the electorial votes need to be split based on the popular vote. So, one candidate would get 11, and another candidate would get 9 (the electorial votes would be reflective of the percentage of popular vote). Each state would still have some representation, but then those that have a state that tends to lean one way would still have their voice heard. It may take a little longer to calculate, but who cares if it takes a week. There is a period of transition and the new president doesn't take over until January... what's the big deal about one more week if it means that the President Elect is truly a mandate of the American people.

jcc64 replied: I actually like Dee Dee's idea, as well. I think it would be more reflective of the popular vote if electors were awarded based on a percentage- as is done in Maine and one other state I can't remember. Therefore, if it's a real horse race in one state, as is often the case, both candidates could come out with some representation. Conversely, if it's a landslide in another state, that could be better reflected as well. For example, I live in NY, which will forever be a blue state. After a certain point, my vote is meaningless.
I feel really dumb that I don't totally understand the history of the electoral college and why it was set up the way it was. Anyone with any knowledge on the subject, please, educate me.

lisar replied: keep in mind Dana there has only been twice in history that the electoral votes didnt match the popular vote. Thats how Bush won against Gore. Keep that in mind.

MommyToAshley replied:
Nebraska and Maine. But, I don't remember them splitting their votes even though their state allows for it.

As for why the electorial college was set up, here's a pretty good explanation:
http://www.maitreg.com/politics/articles/e...oralcollege.asp

Danalana replied: I understand the reasoning behind it, but I still don't like it.
I do like Dee Dee's idea, though...that makes a whole heck of a lot more sense.

jcc64 replied:

I don't know about Nebraska, but I recall hearing that Obama got 3 of Maine's electors and McCain got 1. I might be slightly off numerically, but I know it was something to that effect.

jcc64 replied:

As Lisa pointed out Dana, if not for the electoral college, Al Gore would have been our president in 2000, which would have made me very happy, but I doubt you would have felt the same.

I'm assuming your feelings stem from looking at all those red areas on the electoral maps. Keep in mind that the population is very very small in a lot of those states. Alaska, for example, is geographically enormous, but only has about 110,000 people living there. Same thing for Wyoming and Montana, etc...NJ, which looks teeny weeny on the map, is packed to the gills with people- 110,000 wouldn't even be a smallish city there. So, when it comes to those red and blue maps you see on tv, looks are very very deceiving.

Danalana replied: Yep, that's why, Jeanne. And I do get it, honestly. It's just crazy that some states only get 3 votes, while california gets 55. It almost seems unfair, but I know it's because there are more people there. Again, I like Dee Dee's idea. Oh well, it's over now.

MommyToAshley replied:
Ahhh, I hadn't heard that yet. When I was watching the coverage last night, the networks gave all four to Obama when calculating the total electoral votes. I'm assuming that they changed or clarified that after all the precincts were accounted for? I think Nebraska's votes are split based on the regional winners for three of their votes and the other two go to the winner of the popular vote. I only know this because Obama's campaign was thinking that they could pick up one of Nebraska's electorial votes (from one of the more democratic regions) if it became a close race and that one vote could have made a difference. But, evidently, it didn't make a difference as the race wasn't remotely close.

lisar replied:
Nevermind I was looking at the wrong thing when I looked this up

luvmykids replied: I don't dislike the electoral college because I think the popular vote yields a different result, I dislike it because I live in a blue state

I understand why CA has 55 votes compared to our measly 5, but it still feels like if the popular vote counted, then at least I could say my vote mattered in that count...in the electoral, it doesn't.