What do you think of the electoral college?

[BrightStar]

With them doing all the voiting, the popular votes are irrelavant, aside from telling how the members of that electoral college what their states want them to vote for, but they can vote for whoever they want either way.

For better or worse, with them in charge, your votes for president do not count.

What do you think of that type of issue?

[memorydream]

Well, that seems very opinionated to begin with, but I do agree with it. Democracy stands on the actions of the smallest part of the masses; the individual. If you want more democracy, you have to do more for it. But, if a people loose enough of it: blood in the streets, may ensue.

[keiko]

Democracy should be that the vote of the many is held in higher regard than the vote of the few. The electoral collage chooses while the popular vote and election polls offer the ILLUSION of choice to appease the masses and make them feel as if they are actually having a say in their own future.
Damnit, I swore to myself I would not discuss politics in a public forum...
K

[memorydream]

Democracy should be that the vote of the many is held in higher regard than the vote of the few. The electoral collage chooses while the popular vote and election polls offer the ILLUSION of choice to appease the masses and make them feel as if they are actually having a say in their own future.
Damnit, I swore to myself I would not discuss politics in a public forum...
K

I understand not talking about it. But, I think it's really important you state your opinion somewhere along the line. Otherwise, the masses miss it, and that would mean even less democracy, I believe.

[hewhoisagod]

Ok, in some states, the electoral college fucking sucks......... take Kansas, the only time it has EVER voted for a Democrat was for Lyndon Johnson....... and yet the president of the college Democrats is a KU student, and Lawrence is the third most liberal city in the US (many benefits, few drawbacks)....

But think about this............... you could not vote for your Senator until the 1900's, the House of Representatives was the only house in Congress voted by the people, Senators were appointed by state legislators. There is one major reason why the electoral college is still in use and this is the only reason........ so that the emotions of the public did not completely influence the government, like in the 70's there was a group called the Moral Majority, headed by Jerry Falwell that got a shitload of Republicans into office which is how Reagan became president. That is the only reason why the electoral college is a good thing, if we went by popular vote, we wouldn't be in Iraq or Afghanistan....... on a good note (for me anyways), if the election were today, Kerry would be president.

[memorydream]

The more I think about it, the more I want it (the Electoral College) to go, period.

[keiko]

It's an outdated fossil that has no reflection of what the people actually want. It's a system that denies people the actual choice of who gets into office. Please let the election go with Kerry in the hearts and minds of the electoral collage. Not the best choice, but the lesser of the two evils in any case. And that way my entire industry doesn't get short sheeted, as it were.
K

[nausiatingpain]

There seems to be the misunderstanding here that the electoral college is a static group of individuals in each state that tends to vote the way their state's people voted, but nonetheless have the freedom to vote however they want.

In reality, the people of the state choose the electors. The electors are a slate of individuals that have pledged to vote for their party's candidate. So if Kerry wins the popular vote in Kansas, his slate of electors will win, and unless there's a rogue elector, every single electoral vote from Kansas will go to Kerry.

The electoral college also balances power between states. So if, for example, 90% of California's people votes for a certain candidate for some reason, it won't have such an enormous impact on the election.

[memorydream]

It's an outdated fossil that has no reflection of what the people actually want. It's a system that denies people the actual choice of who gets into office. Please let the election go with Kerry in the hearts and minds of the electoral collage. Not the best choice, but the lesser of the two evils in any case. And that way my entire industry doesn't get short sheeted, as it were.
K

Yes, ma'am, I agree.

Kerry? Bush-lite as I've heard him called?

[memorydream]

There seems to be the misunderstanding here that the electoral college is a static group of individuals in each state that tends to vote the way their state's people voted, but nonetheless have the freedom to vote however they want.

In reality, the people of the state choose the electors. The electors are a slate of individuals that have pledged to vote for their party's candidate. So if Kerry wins the popular vote in Kansas, his slate of electors will win, and unless there's a rogue elector, every single electoral vote from Kansas will go to Kerry.

The electoral college also balances power between states. So if, for example, 90% of California's people votes for a certain candidate for some reason, it won't have such an enormous impact on the election.

I know what you are saying. It just seems to me that the greater point here is about less administration and more of a people's choice. Not necessarily a carefullly laid down system to benefit popular politicians and their dissidents.

It's interesting to note that actual voting is far more diverse and enriched than the procedures that are put in place. A majority of people not having what they feel is appropriate for their country is just as wrong as ignoring the opinions of the minority.

Enormous impacts are what are elections need.

Thanks for the points.