Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Crybaby Democrats? Republicans defend the will of the people...

saladami82 · 06-14-2003, 02:54 PM

The electoral college.. is a form of protecting state's rights and preventing a "regional candidate." The same voting impact is rendered from winning 51% of a state vs winning 100% (or even lower with more candidates involved). Why is this desirable? The first time Andrew Jackson ran for president he won the popular vote, and lost the electoral vote because he won a vast majority (80%+) in his home state and several surrounding (southern) states. He just plain ignored the wishes and desires of half the country. Under a popular vote system a modern candidate's best bet would be to woo the largest cities and leave people in say.. Idaho.. high and dry. Currently even the dinkiest states are worth campaigning.

Speaking of voting reforms.. what about the time differences across the country? I used to live in hawaii, and every presidential election that occured while I lived there (not the 2000 one) has been declared "over" on TV by the time anyone in hawaii would consider/be able to vote. This has to have some kind of effect on the west coast. Granted, most voters simply vote along party lines that they chose years or decades before. But middle of the road voters, if they exist, would have no reason to vote when the TV says it's already over.

Sure the system could be a lot better.. but why think about that when florida uses ballots people can't even understand, and media coverage affects the outcome. I say take the whole mess electronic, count it all at once. "Please touch a picture of your candidate and/or their affiliated party symbol please." It's a presidential election there shouldn't be any room for bullshit excuses.

-saladami

06-14-2003, 02:54 PM	#7 (permalink)
saladami82 Upright Location: NJ	The electoral college.. is a form of protecting state's rights and preventing a "regional candidate." The same voting impact is rendered from winning 51% of a state vs winning 100% (or even lower with more candidates involved). Why is this desirable? The first time Andrew Jackson ran for president he won the popular vote, and lost the electoral vote because he won a vast majority (80%+) in his home state and several surrounding (southern) states. He just plain ignored the wishes and desires of half the country. Under a popular vote system a modern candidate's best bet would be to woo the largest cities and leave people in say.. Idaho.. high and dry. Currently even the dinkiest states are worth campaigning. Speaking of voting reforms.. what about the time differences across the country? I used to live in hawaii, and every presidential election that occured while I lived there (not the 2000 one) has been declared "over" on TV by the time anyone in hawaii would consider/be able to vote. This has to have some kind of effect on the west coast. Granted, most voters simply vote along party lines that they chose years or decades before. But middle of the road voters, if they exist, would have no reason to vote when the TV says it's already over. Sure the system could be a lot better.. but why think about that when florida uses ballots people can't even understand, and media coverage affects the outcome. I say take the whole mess electronic, count it all at once. "Please touch a picture of your candidate and/or their affiliated party symbol please." It's a presidential election there shouldn't be any room for bullshit excuses. -saladami Last edited by saladami82; 06-14-2003 at 02:56 PM..