Topic awaiting preservation: Winner take all? (Page 1 of 1)

I think it was Colorado, this year, that had a measure to change the way the electoral college votes are awarded. The change would be to give the votes proportionately to the major candidates. For instance, a state holds 50 electoral votes, one guy gets 52% of popular vote the other gets 48%. The EVs would be awarded 26 to one guy and 24 to the other. This would stop any particular state from being absolutely critical to win for any candidate. Does this make sense to anyone?

~allewyn

<eeks! a typo!>

(Edited by Allewyn on 11-04-2004 02:56)

Maine is like to some degree. I can't say I've read up on it personally.


However we're talking about four electoral votes here. I like the concept though, and when Florida went nutso in 2000 that was my first thought was that why don't they just split the electoral votes if it was that ridiculously close. The electoral college is an interesting system, but I don't see any reason why it has to be winner take all.


Just throwing in my .02

-Chesta

I really don't want to get into a big political debate, but I'll toss out a quick rhetorical comment...

Ever notice that the losers are the only ones who see something wrong with the system? If the outcome had gone the other way, it would be a different group saying we need to "fix" the system.

And that doesn't just apply to our national election. It happens everywhere. If something doesn't work out in your favor, something must be wrong.

::shrugs:: That's my 2 cents.

LF

quote:

---

Ever notice that the losers are the only ones who see something wrong with the system? If the outcome had gone the other way, it would be a different group saying we need to "fix" the system.

---

Absolutely true. But the question is, are the losers bringing it up because they want to unfairly increase their chances of winning, or are the winners avoiding the topic because they like having unfairly increased chances of winning? It might not be the complaining by the losers which is wrong; it might be the lack of complaints from the winners which is wrong.


 

i don't know about the electoral college system, but as one of the whining losers, i'm squeezing my conspiracy blanket .. okay, blanketS =)

[insert fabulous sig here]

My preference would be to simply throw the Electoral College out the window... It seems an antiquated system that causes more problems than good. Then the canditates could focus on all the states rather than just a few choice "battleground" states. Why not truly make every vote count? (Or am I missing the bus on this one?)

My non-poli-sci understanding of that is because then states like California and New York would essentially control who gets voted in. Granted, it's still somewhat like that, but I think the Electoral College lessens this at least a little bit.

I don't remember a whole lot from my poli-sci class a few years ago. The prof I had the first semester was great and I even remembered a bunch of stuff he taught, however, the second semester prof was about as interesting as the character Ben Stein usually plays and you struggle just to stay awake, much less retain anything :/

The electoral college was designed (and functions well) to prevent any one state from having too much power. It's a fine balance between direct popular vote and making sure the smaller states still are represented.

Sure, there are the big "swing states", but as I recall, both Gore and Kerry got the two largest states (Cali and NY) and they both lost the elections.

Maine (and I believe either Colorado or Nebraska, though I don't remember too well) do give out proportional electoral votes. To be honest, I don't know if it's more fair or less fair to have all states do it this way... I guess the only way would be to have some sort of teeny US test it out.

Hey, Cyprus looks a little bit like the US, maybe we can set up an electoral college there?

[edit: SEE!?

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- Arthur C. Clarke
"Any sufficiently arcane magic is indistinguishable from technology." -- P. David Lebling

(Edited by Iron Wallaby on 11-05-2004 05:48)

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever notice that the losers are the only ones who see something wrong with the system? If the outcome had gone the other way, it would be a different group saying we need to "fix" the system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Absolutely true. But the question is, are the losers bringing it up because they want to unfairly increase their chances of winning, or are the winners avoiding the topic because they like having unfairly increased chances of winning? It might not be the complaining by the losers which is wrong; it might be the lack of complaints from the winners which is wrong.

---

Hmmm just got back. Kinda disappointing that people make such assumptions because someone questions the system. I happened to be on the winning side, whatever that is. I don't see it as sides, just Americans. Too bad people are so jumpy. I would think, from what I've heard since the election, from losers, that this would appeal to them more but maybe some people will never be happy, hm?

quote:

---

the winners avoiding the topic because they like having unfairly increased chances of winning?
it might be the lack of complaints from the winners which is wrong.

---

Actually Slime, I brought it up and I'm a winner. I'm amazed you think only losers try to change the system or wonder how it could be better. I'm also amazed that you and others think people want change just to benefit themsleves. How cynical. The electoral process, the way it is designed, worked flawlessly. That doesn't mean it couldn't work better. I'm not attacking, just perplexed by what I hear in this thread. Same old "who gives a squat, whatever" attitude I heard *before* the election. I guess nothing's changed here anyway.

Shuffles back into solitary and marks another day off on the wall
~allewyn

(Edited by Allewyn on 11-07-2004 03:02)

*sneaks into adjoining cell, drills hole in wall, sticks eraser onto telescoping extenderator, pokes eraser through hole and erases mark on wall.

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

I also was wondering when I gave my political preference?


Just stating personal experience. Makes sense to me.

-Chesta

Stirs from sleep, rolls over toward wall, notices mark missing, takes another black pill, goes back to sleep

quote:

---

The electoral college was designed (and functions well) to prevent any one state from having too much power. It's a fine balance between direct popular vote and making sure the smaller states still are represented.

---

I think the actual reason why the Electoral College was implemented was to ensure that the winner would win by a large margin. That's kind of ironic seeing how w/ the EC things are still so close.

Allewyn -
If the Electoral College were to change to split its votes it would work roughly the same way as the popular vote. Each state's Electoral vote is determined by combining the # of reps in the House & Senate - which is determined by population. I don't think its really necessary to change things but there are some that do. The problem with changing things slowly is it makes the individual state worthless to the candidates so they don't bother campagning in it and $$$ doesn't get spent.

No.., it was to ensure the right person got put into office and to equalize the larger populations in some states. Electoral representatives were to vote the will of the states populations. But, they could vote differently if their conscience dictated it to be necessary.

The Electoral College was more about maintaining state control over elections and preventing uninformed choices than making sure the majority got their way.

It was also to prevent local favourtism. National campaigns were not the norm when the college was created and it was unlikely that people in some states would know enough information about a candidate from another state. So it was assumed that people would vote for the States "Favorite Son". Initially the electors had two votes to cast and one could NOT be cast for their own homegrown candidate.

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.