Electorial College: Continue / Stop - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Sun Tzu · 06-20-2003, 02:48 PM

The hardest aspect for me to truly understand is the convergence of the deciding votes being in key areas. Does this mean that minds that think alike flock together? A city is more predominatley liberal than conservative, or other potical persuasion? I understand that poeple win terms because one party gets more than another, IMO it seems the vote across the country seems low because they feel their vote doesnt matter. I understand what is being said about the deciding areas, but that brings up another argument that I saw coming out earlier in this thread.

At first I thought this person was an cold corperate asshole spouting off (he was temping for Rush-who annoys me), but after hearing his whole argument I saw his side made reasonable sense as well:

Those who pay higher taxes should get more votes and if you dont pay taxes you dont vote. As I said when first hearing this I thought the guy was nuts, but he was looking at it in terms of what he is getting for his money. Why should someone who pays $900 in taxes get the same say as $20,000? My first reaction was "yeah so the elite wealthy can run the place", well they do anyway it seems to sometimes. I then looked at it in this sense two people go to the gas pump one pays $1.23 for a gallon of gas and the other pays $5.50 per gallon. What is person B getting any different than person A-nothing just more of a financial hickey. Of course I suppose this gets deep into what the 2 parties are all about.

seretogis · 06-20-2003, 06:43 PM

This is still the United States of America. As long as the electoral college system is in place, states actually matter, and have some power. As soon as you get rid of it, you can expect many state powers to be stripped away -- just as they have when it comes to speed limits (bribery) and medical use of marijuana.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sun Tzu
Those who pay higher taxes should get more votes and if you dont pay taxes you dont vote.

This is a failure of the tax system, not of the idea of equal representation.

Mr Scorcex · 06-21-2003, 07:24 PM

geep: There are more whites on welfare than minorities as they account for 80% of the population in the U.S., not for any other reason.
It seems this has basically turned into a debate between those for majority rule and those who want the rights of the minority protected. This is exactly why I need my own country, of which I can be dictator. People don't know what's good for 'em.

The_Dude · 06-21-2003, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sun Tzu
The hardest aspect for me to truly understand is the convergence of the deciding votes being in key areas. Does this mean that minds that think alike flock together? A city is more predominatley liberal than conservative, or other potical persuasion? I understand that poeple win terms because one party gets more than another, IMO it seems the vote across the country seems low because they feel their vote doesnt matter. I understand what is being said about the deciding areas, but that brings up another argument that I saw coming out earlier in this thread.

At first I thought this person was an cold corperate asshole spouting off (he was temping for Rush-who annoys me), but after hearing his whole argument I saw his side made reasonable sense as well:

Those who pay higher taxes should get more votes and if you dont pay taxes you dont vote. As I said when first hearing this I thought the guy was nuts, but he was looking at it in terms of what he is getting for his money. Why should someone who pays $900 in taxes get the same say as $20,000? My first reaction was "yeah so the elite wealthy can run the place", well they do anyway it seems to sometimes. I then looked at it in this sense two people go to the gas pump one pays $1.23 for a gallon of gas and the other pays $5.50 per gallon. What is person B getting any different than person A-nothing just more of a financial hickey. Of course I suppose this gets deep into what the 2 parties are all about.

as seretogis said, when you elected somebody into office, you are electing them to do more than just economic stuff.

government goes way beyond that.

so, a poor person gets no representation in areas like gay rights or other issues just because they dont pay enough taxes?

fugue_life · 07-21-2003, 05:43 PM

Im posing these questions to all you tilted heads. Is the electoral college still needed? Was it ever needed? Wthout it we would probably have a different prez right now so what are your thoughts?

Pennington · 07-21-2003, 06:15 PM

If we were to use straight popular vote, candidates would only campaign on the coasts and metro areas. An electoral college, while not perfect, helps the smaller states keep a voice in politics. The downside is that a person voting in Idaho technacally has more of a say than a person in california.

The_Dude · 07-21-2003, 06:22 PM

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ctoral+college

already a thread about this.

Phaenx · 07-21-2003, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pennington
If we were to use straight popular vote, candidates would only campaign on the coasts and metro areas. An electoral college, while not perfect, helps the smaller states keep a voice in politics. The downside is that a person voting in Idaho technacally has more of a say than a person in california.

Good! Down with the left coast!

Sen · 07-21-2003, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pennington
If we were to use straight popular vote, candidates would only campaign on the coasts and metro areas. An electoral college, while not perfect, helps the smaller states keep a voice in politics...

That's right. Without the electoral college, those of us in "flyover country" wouldn't have any say, or recieve any attention from the candidates at all. The electoral college fosters nationwide participaiton in the process.

Zeld2.0 · 07-21-2003, 11:36 PM

IMO the only real controversy that ever really occurs over this is because of the really really really close elections (in the 2000 case being the most recent and most publicized one).

This isn't raelly an issue if a president has a much larger vote.

The electoral college has served its purpose - in cases where no candidate gets a majority (hell there have been elections of 45% vs. 43% and what not in the past) the electoral college does the job fine.

I find it in other ways though also flawed. First is that a state may ahve a majority but even if its a slight majority all of its votes may be dumped to the candidate. Theres pretty large minority groups and what not in states that garner a lot of votes but not enough and the state in the end gives up a large chunk to the opposing candidate.

Also I'd like to say it now that in a few years this will become a even larger issue.

Because of how polarized the parties have been, and yet at the same time the candidates have platforms closer and closer to each other, the voting sadly ends up more party based and more polarized and we may very well see more and more and more close elections to which one point a large controversy may very well occur.

Hopefully it won't cause anything too big but by that time it would IMO be best to change the system.

sportsrule101 · 07-22-2003, 05:06 AM

read penningtons post and shut your mouth.
Would you like to abolish the senate too. Its all a check and balance system of power.

Zeld2.0 · 07-22-2003, 09:26 AM

wow gj - oh wait most of the nation has been moving to the "sunbelt" and other than a few major cities thats where most politicians focus their campaigning anyways

honestly it won't be an issue when elections are clearly going one way but when there are successions of close elections and controversy comes out on it, then people will think twice

Locobot · 07-22-2003, 05:21 PM

I voted for Gore and I'd like to see it stay. It serves as a check on the population of our country. All other branches of the government have check on them, why shouldn't the voting public have one? In these days of constant nationwide communication it seems much more likely that a single entity (network, party, corporation, etc.) could use their influence create a tyranny of the masses. It is possible for electoral college members to vote against the polls if an explosive populist movement (What % of the population thought Iraq was behind 9/11?) emerges. I do think it should be reformed so that each electoral college member votes independently, irrespective to other electoral votes in their state.

smooth · 07-22-2003, 07:38 PM

That's a good point Locobot. Anyone have a good reason why that isn't so?

BlueMan · 07-24-2003, 07:45 PM

The only reason the federal gov't has a say in gay rights, abortion rights, and other social issues is due to the fact that they claim jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause, which has been stretched to be nigh-unrecognizable. It also happens that most decisions that the federal government makes on those issues are tied to money in some way, so yes, I do come down on the side of those that believe that only those paying taxes should vote. There is no reason that someone who lives solely on the public trough should have a say in what those that pay for the meal set before him.

Also, I'll put my view of the electoral college and the popular vote this way: the vote of the -people- elects your representatives. Both to the Congress, and incidentally, to the Electoral College. The -states- elect the President, via the Electoral College. "Your vote counts" in the decision of which way your state's vote is going to go. That is why a person can lose the popular vote and win the Presidency. The EC's purpose, as already stated, is to protect the rights of those who live in less populous areas of the country, and to keep a few large population areas from deciding issues for everyone.

What the by county map fails to show is how many of those states were decided for Gore based solely on the votes garnered from the large cities, regardless of the fact that a staggering geographical majority of the country chose Bush.

Zeld2.0 · 07-24-2003, 10:09 PM

Yeah the map DOES fail to show the votes garnered by large cities - Bush had a geographical majority in the country but a lot of the areas added together may not even represent one area of votes in a large city.

For example, California on the map has a majority of its area Republicans - but the Democrats clearly won the vote in that one.

Same goes for other states where Dem's won.

fact of the matter is, a good majority of the population lives in teh cities so geographical doesn't even matter as much already - the way presdients win have already been campaigning in the big cities of states - yes even the small states as well as the large - but they still focus on population centers. Because even in states without large cities, winning a large number of votes int he cities may often be more than enough compared to the population of the rest of the state.

porkpie · 07-25-2003, 02:08 AM

Trash it. One person, one vote. And a run-off for the top two contenders. Lets get the Dems and the Reps outa there.

And I don't think wealth should determine your right to vote as much as, say, whether you graduated jr. high school.

Is there a test that can determine whether you can think for yourself?

View Poll Results: Should the US electorial college stay or go?
Keep it	19	41.30%
Trash it	27	58.70%
Voters: 46. You may not vote on this poll

06-20-2003, 02:48 PM	#41 (permalink)
Sun Tzu Conspiracy Realist Location: The Event Horizon	The hardest aspect for me to truly understand is the convergence of the deciding votes being in key areas. Does this mean that minds that think alike flock together? A city is more predominatley liberal than conservative, or other potical persuasion? I understand that poeple win terms because one party gets more than another, IMO it seems the vote across the country seems low because they feel their vote doesnt matter. I understand what is being said about the deciding areas, but that brings up another argument that I saw coming out earlier in this thread. At first I thought this person was an cold corperate asshole spouting off (he was temping for Rush-who annoys me), but after hearing his whole argument I saw his side made reasonable sense as well: Those who pay higher taxes should get more votes and if you dont pay taxes you dont vote. As I said when first hearing this I thought the guy was nuts, but he was looking at it in terms of what he is getting for his money. Why should someone who pays $900 in taxes get the same say as $20,000? My first reaction was "yeah so the elite wealthy can run the place", well they do anyway it seems to sometimes. I then looked at it in this sense two people go to the gas pump one pays $1.23 for a gallon of gas and the other pays $5.50 per gallon. What is person B getting any different than person A-nothing just more of a financial hickey. Of course I suppose this gets deep into what the 2 parties are all about. __________________ *To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking*

07-21-2003, 05:43 PM	#45 (permalink)
fugue_life Insane Location: under the stairs	do we need the electoral college? Im posing these questions to all you tilted heads. Is the electoral college still needed? Was it ever needed? Wthout it we would probably have a different prez right now so what are your thoughts? __________________ ba-weep=gra=na-weep-nini-bon?

07-21-2003, 06:22 PM	#47 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ctoral+college already a thread about this. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

07-22-2003, 05:06 AM	#51 (permalink)
sportsrule101 Insane	read penningtons post and shut your mouth. Would you like to abolish the senate too. Its all a check and balance system of power. __________________ winning isn't everything but losing isn't anything

06-21-2003, 07:24 PM	#43 (permalink)
Mr Scorcex Insane Location: Colorado	geep: There are more whites on welfare than minorities as they account for 80% of the population in the U.S., not for any other reason. It seems this has basically turned into a debate between those for majority rule and those who want the rights of the minority protected. This is exactly why I need my own country, of which I can be dictator. People don't know what's good for 'em.

07-21-2003, 06:15 PM	#46 (permalink)
Pennington Banned Location: Autonomous Zone	If we were to use straight popular vote, candidates would only campaign on the coasts and metro areas. An electoral college, while not perfect, helps the smaller states keep a voice in politics. The downside is that a person voting in Idaho technacally has more of a say than a person in california.

07-21-2003, 11:36 PM	#50 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	IMO the only real controversy that ever really occurs over this is because of the really really really close elections (in the 2000 case being the most recent and most publicized one). This isn't raelly an issue if a president has a much larger vote. The electoral college has served its purpose - in cases where no candidate gets a majority (hell there have been elections of 45% vs. 43% and what not in the past) the electoral college does the job fine. I find it in other ways though also flawed. First is that a state may ahve a majority but even if its a slight majority all of its votes may be dumped to the candidate. Theres pretty large minority groups and what not in states that garner a lot of votes but not enough and the state in the end gives up a large chunk to the opposing candidate. Also I'd like to say it now that in a few years this will become a even larger issue. Because of how polarized the parties have been, and yet at the same time the candidates have platforms closer and closer to each other, the voting sadly ends up more party based and more polarized and we may very well see more and more and more close elections to which one point a large controversy may very well occur. Hopefully it won't cause anything too big but by that time it would IMO be best to change the system.

07-22-2003, 09:26 AM	#52 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	wow gj - oh wait most of the nation has been moving to the "sunbelt" and other than a few major cities thats where most politicians focus their campaigning anyways honestly it won't be an issue when elections are clearly going one way but when there are successions of close elections and controversy comes out on it, then people will think twice

07-22-2003, 05:21 PM	#53 (permalink)
Locobot is awesome!	I voted for Gore and I'd like to see it stay. It serves as a check on the population of our country. All other branches of the government have check on them, why shouldn't the voting public have one? In these days of constant nationwide communication it seems much more likely that a single entity (network, party, corporation, etc.) could use their influence create a tyranny of the masses. It is possible for electoral college members to vote against the polls if an explosive populist movement (What % of the population thought Iraq was behind 9/11?) emerges. I do think it should be reformed so that each electoral college member votes independently, irrespective to other electoral votes in their state.

07-22-2003, 07:38 PM	#54 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	That's a good point Locobot. Anyone have a good reason why that isn't so? __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

07-24-2003, 07:45 PM	#55 (permalink)
BlueMan Upright	The only reason the federal gov't has a say in gay rights, abortion rights, and other social issues is due to the fact that they claim jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause, which has been stretched to be nigh-unrecognizable. It also happens that most decisions that the federal government makes on those issues are tied to money in some way, so yes, I do come down on the side of those that believe that only those paying taxes should vote. There is no reason that someone who lives solely on the public trough should have a say in what those that pay for the meal set before him. Also, I'll put my view of the electoral college and the popular vote this way: the vote of the -people- elects your representatives. Both to the Congress, and incidentally, to the Electoral College. The -states- elect the President, via the Electoral College. "Your vote counts" in the decision of which way your state's vote is going to go. That is why a person can lose the popular vote and win the Presidency. The EC's purpose, as already stated, is to protect the rights of those who live in less populous areas of the country, and to keep a few large population areas from deciding issues for everyone. What the by county map fails to show is how many of those states were decided for Gore based solely on the votes garnered from the large cities, regardless of the fact that a staggering geographical majority of the country chose Bush.

07-24-2003, 10:09 PM	#56 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	Yeah the map DOES fail to show the votes garnered by large cities - Bush had a geographical majority in the country but a lot of the areas added together may not even represent one area of votes in a large city. For example, California on the map has a majority of its area Republicans - but the Democrats clearly won the vote in that one. Same goes for other states where Dem's won. fact of the matter is, a good majority of the population lives in teh cities so geographical doesn't even matter as much already - the way presdients win have already been campaigning in the big cities of states - yes even the small states as well as the large - but they still focus on population centers. Because even in states without large cities, winning a large number of votes int he cities may often be more than enough compared to the population of the rest of the state.

07-25-2003, 02:08 AM	#57 (permalink)
porkpie Upright Location: Massachusetts	Trash it. One person, one vote. And a run-off for the top two contenders. Lets get the Dems and the Reps outa there. And I don't think wealth should determine your right to vote as much as, say, whether you graduated jr. high school. Is there a test that can determine whether you can think for yourself?