Electoral college

[LiberalsAreBabyKillers!]

You should do a poll asking weather or not they think that the electoral college should be reappealed.

[Wadi66]

reappealed.????? reAppealed? as in appealed again?? or repealed as in taken away?

I'm not the local grammar cop but that had me going for a sec., then I figured out what you were saying.

NO the electoral college should not be repealed. Sorry if you don't like it, but a majority vote isn't in our best interest. Rural communities are already having things shoved down their throats by large cities voters.

The electoral college forces politicians to win the hearts and votes of rural America.

[IHL]

I agree Wadi. If we got rid of the electoral college, then the elections would be determined by LA, NYC, Chicago, and all the major population areas. It would be horrible.

By the way Wadi, I added a 'no' vote to the poll for you.

[RightisRightLeftisWrong]

I do think the electoral college needs to stay. I too agree with IHL, rural areas would be cheated out of their vote by millions of city dwellers.

[Wadi66]

Hey, Master Chief and RightisRightLeftisWrong what's gong on? IHL agrees with ME and you say "yeah I agree with IHL". You're supppose to say, "Yeah I agree with Wadi and IHL" I mean come on guys, give credit where credit is due. :icon_wink :icon_wink I'm just razzing you guys, don't take me serious.

IHL, you voted for me?? You voted for me? Thank you !!!

[Bumblebee]

Remember just before the Kerry and Bush election, the liberals were talking about changing it from the electoral vote to the popular vote?
They know the big cities are mostly all liberal with the highest population.

[LiberalsAreBabyKillers!]

That was my opinion before, I just wanted to know what my fellows on the right thought.

[RightisRightLeftisWrong]

Hey, Master Chief and RightisRightLeftisWrong what's gong on? IHL agrees with ME and you say "yeah I agree with IHL". You're supppose to say, "Yeah I agree with Wadi and IHL" I mean come on guys, give credit where credit is due. I'm just razzing you guys, don't take me serious.

I apologize Wadi profusely I DO AGREE WITH WADI AND IHL! woohooo! :icon_bigg

[IHL]

Not surprisingly most of the "yes" votes have thus far come from the liberals. I think there is a reason for this - look at the red states vs. blue states and you'll see the answer.

Most of America is conservative when looking at the country as a whole. If you removed the population centers, ie. the big cities - it would be overwhelmingly conservative. Large population areas such as LA, San Franscisco, Chicago, and NYC are largely liberal. The population of California alone, approximately 35 million is more than Connecticut, Iowa, Mississippi, Kansas, Arkansas, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, West Virginia, Nebraska, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming combined. As you can see, California could trump the vote of all of these other states. Is it fair that California should be able to virtually eliminate the vote of all of these other states? These other states demonstrate a very diverse cross section of America. They should get their votes and one state or one small section of America should not have that much power to elect the president.

[havik206]

Regardless of big city political affiliations would it not be true democracy to let the country as a whole to decide who their leaders should be? Remember Bush won the popular vote sometimes the big cities will not always vote for a liberal candidate. Look at the Reagan administration he won by a land slide in most states.

[Wadi66]

would it not be true democracy to let the country as a whole to decide who their leaders should be?yes it would havik, but our form of government is not a democracy. Never has been, never was intended to be. Its a representative republic. People get confused by that and that confusion leads them to think the majority should rule. Not so, because at any time a "majority" could vote to deny a minority a basic right.

[NewKindOfSoldier]

ahh right so thats why bush is spreading "democracy" and "freedom" throughout the world.

[Wadi66]

ahh right so thats why bush is spreading "democracy" and "freedom" throughout the world.And your point is......?

[Master_Phil]

Remember just before the Kerry and Bush election, the liberals were talking about changing it from the electoral vote to the popular vote?
They know the big cities are mostly all liberal with the highest population.
Yeah, but luckly even if the electoral vote had been repealed, Bush, thankfully, would've won! But, Wadi and IHL, you do have a point. I guess I never stopped to think about what would happen if the electoral vote would be repealed. Probably something like what's goin' on here in Iowa, with our liberal dumb-ass governor Vilsack giving full voting rights to any and all convicts here! that's bull-shit. another example of liberals trying to get votes. but i have a feeling it won't work. lets hope i'm right.

[HealthyCommie]

And your point is......?

I can't speak for him of course, but I think what he meant was that Bush should stop making claims that he's spreading "freedom" and "democracy", when in fact we don't even have a real democracy here in America. I just find it absurd how America tries to portray itself as a symbol of freedom, when America has such a long history of ousting democratically elected leaders, installing dictators, siding with dictators, etc.

[therightman]

ahh yes.but you have faild to realise that thats why we are so great.thats why we win.so if you want to lose then vote for the democrats.WHOS WITH ME BOYS????

[Wadi66]

I can't speak for him of course, but I think what he meant was that Bush should stop making claims that he's spreading "freedom" and "democracy", when in fact we don't even have a real democracy here in America.HC, democracies are all right in other countries, they aren't ready for our form of government. A democracy is better than a dictatorship.


I just find it absurd how America tries to portray itself as a symbol of freedom, when America has such a long history of ousting democratically elected leaders, installing dictators, siding with dictators, etc.HC, it isn't America doing that. Just those we have ignorantly allowed to run our government. Now if more Americans knew what exactly has been and is going on, we might have a few changes. None of our current or forthcoming candidates will change the status quo, the people will have to become more actively involved.

[Tampaman]

We should keep the Electoral College because if it is changed the liberals will just add that to the long list of reasons why they are always losing.

[HealthyCommie]

Huh? The liberals (or Democrats anyway) did just fine with the popular vote in 2000, if memory serves me correct.

[JustTheIssues]

As someone who has lived most of my life in rural states, the Electoral College ensures that presidential candidates address issues of concern to rural voters. Living in Iowa for my first two Presidential elections, I had the opportunity to meet several candidates face to face and ask them questions. While the innundation of ads in the rural "swing states" became more than a little annoying in the '00 and '04 campaigns, rural voters would not have heard or seen from the candidates had it not been for the electoral college. Without it, both parties would continue to concentrate their dollars where they would get the most exposure -- and for both parties that would mean the high population centers. I don't think you'd see a demonstrable difference in the popular vote outcome without the College -- meaning no change in the Bush victory in '04. But you would see a change in the issues discussed and focuses of the campaigns.

[Vendetta]

Bill O'Reilly brought up the best case I have ever heard as to why the Electoral College system should be in place:

If the electoral college system is not in place, some lefty like Bruce Spingstein(or maybe even a real extreme righty to be fair) can get together some cause to stuff the ballot box somewhere (like San Fransisco). If some group gets another group of people to vote for a canadate on either side heavily it could undermine the election process.

Need I say more?

[HOKIEHUNTER]

Regardless of big city political affiliations would it not be true democracy to let the country as a whole to decide who their leaders should be? Remember Bush won the popular vote sometimes the big cities will not always vote for a liberal candidate. Look at the Reagan administration he won by a land slide in most states.
last time i checked, the founding fathers made damn sure this wasn't a democracy. we do not claim to be a democracy. we are a REPUBLIC!!! a democratic republic, but a republic all the same. we don't want the everyday people to make the decisions on every issue. no one has the time. instead you ELECT a representative who REPRESENTS you. come presidential election time, your Representatives elect their REPRESENTATIVE. you vote telling your representative who you would like in office, and that's how the system works. we are not a democracy, and I pray we never will be directly.

[havik206]

why do you pray for that? Would it be so bad? I mean the only reason why I bring that subject up of being a true democratic nation is because of our stance in world politics. I know we are a republic but we also claim to bring democracy to the world when really the way you put it we aren't, instead of democracy we really are imposing our will on countries all over the world. I am sure this isn't the first time you heard but I am merely speculating.

[Mr. Glass]

Well, I haven't read every post here... but I noticed there's no option for Reform.

I agree that a popular vote shouldn't be the basis for the presidential elections, but I also see problems in the current system.

The winner-takes-all system doesn't scale well with large population centers in otherwise sparsely populated states. This can work for or against either party in any given state, but on the whole it adds a layer of innacuracy to the whole system that can be solved with a proportional system.

A related issue I've done a lot of reading and thinking about is Instant Run-Off (IRO) voting. IRO is being used more and more around the world and was used in 2004 in parts of California in local (not state/fed) elections with great success. If we want a TRUELY representative voting system, IRO would suit that role very well. IRO scales and provides for more comprehensive polling data overall.

I'm also a big supporter of electronic voting machines, but I also think it's a matter of accounting and common sense to provide a verifiable "paper" receipt of some sort. It doesn't have to be given to the voter, but a paper trail is a must for any election.

Anyw-who... that's my vote.. Reform.

-Doug

[rightwingxtremist]

Hello,

I think that every poll should have an option that says "I hate liberals".

- N