Is it time to revisit the Electoral College?
12-11-2003, 01:24 PM
#31
Community Organizer
Thread Starter
Originally posted by j_c_a
My intention wasn't to start a political flame war, just to point our that there are other points of view. Regarding the legitimacy of the statistics, well, I thought it would be proper to at least back up what I said w/ references. Make your own judgement.
Cheers.
My intention wasn't to start a political flame war, just to point our that there are other points of view. Regarding the legitimacy of the statistics, well, I thought it would be proper to at least back up what I said w/ references. Make your own judgement.
Cheers.
if you say so...
Would you care to explain exactly what "point of view" those statistics represent?
12-11-2003, 01:53 PM
#32
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Tampa
Posts: 1,004
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look, that fact is Gore LOST. He LOST. Can I say it one more time, he LOST. No amount of could'a would'a should'a is gonna change that and for every argument the Gore camp can make as to why he should've won, there are counter arguments as to why the right man won (at least according to the Bush camp). That was the whole point of the stats. Take 'em as you will.
p.s. He still LOST
p.s. He still LOST
12-11-2003, 01:57 PM
#33
Former Moderator
Unfortunately, those stats didn't show anything particularly relevant to the discussion. So what if 30 million acres of corn voted for someone...it's the PEOPLE that matter.
12-11-2003, 01:59 PM
#34
Former Moderator
Besides, this isn't so much a discussion of Bush v. Gore as that is a single data point in the discussion.
This is really a question of whether the Electoral System is doing what it was intended to do or whether we as a nation need to revisit this subject and renovate the system to be more relevant in society today and into the future.
I think it's undeniable that the political landscape (and the power base) has shifted over the generation and I think that, 2000 election aside, there are legitimate reasons to question the system.
This is really a question of whether the Electoral System is doing what it was intended to do or whether we as a nation need to revisit this subject and renovate the system to be more relevant in society today and into the future.
I think it's undeniable that the political landscape (and the power base) has shifted over the generation and I think that, 2000 election aside, there are legitimate reasons to question the system.
12-11-2003, 02:10 PM
#35
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Tampa
Posts: 1,004
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
brantshali,
You're right. The only reason I bring in the Gore vs. Bush thing is that I can't help but notice that the only ones seriously discussing the relevance of the Electoral College are those dissatisfied w/ the results of the 2000 election.
My assumption right of the bat is that the whole thread is polically motivated. The libs that are currently brandishing the torch for going to a popular vote really need to be careful what they wish for. Yes, that may have changed the outcome for the 2000 elections, but the fact is that overall, the voting power of racial and other minorities would be significantly diminished by a popular election. That's why they're called minorities. The current disticting for the electoral colleges affords racial minorities a level of representation that is disproportinate to their numbers.
Yes, I'm politically conservative, but I also view the republicans as the lesser of two evils. I would not want them to be in power, unchecked any more that I'd want the dems to be. That is why I think the current system is a good compromise that better maintians the balance of power than a pure populous vote would (for either side).
You're right. The only reason I bring in the Gore vs. Bush thing is that I can't help but notice that the only ones seriously discussing the relevance of the Electoral College are those dissatisfied w/ the results of the 2000 election.
My assumption right of the bat is that the whole thread is polically motivated. The libs that are currently brandishing the torch for going to a popular vote really need to be careful what they wish for. Yes, that may have changed the outcome for the 2000 elections, but the fact is that overall, the voting power of racial and other minorities would be significantly diminished by a popular election. That's why they're called minorities. The current disticting for the electoral colleges affords racial minorities a level of representation that is disproportinate to their numbers.
Yes, I'm politically conservative, but I also view the republicans as the lesser of two evils. I would not want them to be in power, unchecked any more that I'd want the dems to be. That is why I think the current system is a good compromise that better maintians the balance of power than a pure populous vote would (for either side).
12-11-2003, 02:16 PM
#36
Former Moderator
Well, to throw a small wrench into the argument, I voted for Bush. My candidate won. That doesn't change the fact that I'm not convinced that the system truly works...or that even if it DOES work as intended that those original intentions are still relevant.
Just food for thought...
Just food for thought...
12-11-2003, 02:22 PM
#37
Community Organizer
Thread Starter
And I, the thread starter voted for neither Gore or Bush.
I voted for Harry Browne. My candidate would have lost - popular vote or electoral college. At least my vote might have showed up on the election coverage programs if we had a popular vote.
I don't see how the electoral college disproportionately favors minorities. In a winner-take all situation - the votes of "minorities" in many cases are all for naught.
I voted for Harry Browne. My candidate would have lost - popular vote or electoral college. At least my vote might have showed up on the election coverage programs if we had a popular vote.
I don't see how the electoral college disproportionately favors minorities. In a winner-take all situation - the votes of "minorities" in many cases are all for naught.
12-11-2003, 02:41 PM
#38
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Tampa
Posts: 1,004
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lig,
Minorities are better represented because in many voting districts, they are the majority under the electoral system and can control the votes of that entire voting district.
Under a populous election, by definition, minorities would have significantly less voting power because they would not be able to control the votes of their "district" and would instead by over-ruled by the majority across the board.
Does that make sense? I get the feeling that it could be explained better than that, but ...
Minorities are better represented because in many voting districts, they are the majority under the electoral system and can control the votes of that entire voting district.
Under a populous election, by definition, minorities would have significantly less voting power because they would not be able to control the votes of their "district" and would instead by over-ruled by the majority across the board.
Does that make sense? I get the feeling that it could be explained better than that, but ...
12-11-2003, 02:47 PM
#39
Community Organizer
Thread Starter
I can understand that in a local sense with districts clearly drawn to include areas that have a high population of "minorites" - but not in the sense that an entire states's electoral college vote goes to the winner of that state - period.
If we had a proportional electoral college system - things would be entirely different.
If we had a proportional electoral college system - things would be entirely different.
12-11-2003, 04:01 PM
#40
Originally posted by j_c_a
Look, that fact is Gore LOST. He LOST. Can I say it one more time, he LOST. No amount of could'a would'a should'a is gonna change that and for every argument the Gore camp can make as to why he should've won, there are counter arguments as to why the right man won (at least according to the Bush camp). That was the whole point of the stats. Take 'em as you will.
p.s. He still LOST
Look, that fact is Gore LOST. He LOST. Can I say it one more time, he LOST. No amount of could'a would'a should'a is gonna change that and for every argument the Gore camp can make as to why he should've won, there are counter arguments as to why the right man won (at least according to the Bush camp). That was the whole point of the stats. Take 'em as you will.
p.s. He still LOST
Oh and did I mention IRRELEVENT.
The question is not about the election although it seems that some folks would like to drag it in. This is a discussion about one person, one vote, not some IRRELEVENT topic about a past election.