What they're trying to do in Colorado seems like a good idea to me (not for this election though, that just seems like a lawsuit waiting to happen). Direct democracy would be ideal but it seems that distributing electoral votes proportionally would be the next best thing. Not only would people feel like their votes actually count, but it would get rid of this business of swing states determining the president while the rest of us watch. It would also eliminate the effect of spoiler candidates like Perot and Nader. Maybe I'm missing something, but why hasn't this been implemented in more states?
-
What they're trying to do in Colorado seems like a good idea to me (not for this election though, that just seems like a lawsuit waiting to happen). Direct democracy would be ideal but it seems that distributing electoral votes proportionally would be the next best thing. Not only would people feel like their votes actually count, but it would get rid of this business of swing states determining the president while the rest of us watch. It would also eliminate the effect of spoiler candidates like Perot and Nader. Maybe I'm missing something, but why hasn't this been implemented in more states?"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices." - Voltaire -
political gerimandering.
/VETO
'I guess John Kerry went into the primaries without a plan to win the election.' - Ann Coulter
All you ever needed to know about how the left thinks in one video.
The Thinking Conservatives Website
Hey Michael Mooron, THIS is what a documentary looks like. -
why hasn't this been implemented in more states?
The same reason we still have a trade embargo on Cuba.War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
Comment
-
Its not be implemented in ANY state.Originally posted by CaptaiN_JacK
Because its going to be a Federal question and issue it could not be administerd but just a state or two.
And for over 200 years the Electoral College has worked pretty darn well. It keeps very large states from overpowering all the smaller rural states. Works as well as anything anyone else has come up with. If it was not for this then California, New York and a handfull of other large states would control over 75 percent of the country with what their ideals and moral were.
Darn thing works. Very forsightfulll of our early founders to see this problem before it happened and devise a means for protectiing the little guys. Makes us more a Federation of States.Comment
-
But if this plan was implemented, wouldn't each state still have the same number of electoral votes? So the big states wouldn't necessarily have any more power?Have Xbox Live? Check out LiveGamers.net (We're oh so lonely on the forums there)Comment
-
Right, it keeps the number of votes each state gets the same. It just distributes the state's votes to each candidate in a different way.
ex: If Rhode Island has 10 votes and Bush gets 50% of the vote, Kerry gets 40% and Nader gets 10%, then Bush gets 5 votes, Kerry gets 4 and Nader gets 1...instead of Bush getting all 10.
The little states won't get any more bulldozed than they do now."Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices." - VoltaireComment
-
Terrible idea. If you want to do it, do it in california and new york. Winner take all helps restore clout to the smaller states.
Oppose mendment 36 -- Coloradans Against a Really Stupid IdeaComment
-
because communism is evil?Originally posted by CaptaiN_JacK
duh.
'I guess John Kerry went into the primaries without a plan to win the election.' - Ann Coulter
All you ever needed to know about how the left thinks in one video.
The Thinking Conservatives Website
Hey Michael Mooron, THIS is what a documentary looks like.Comment
-
would this help the Electoral College's football team??
JDub
"Automags.org. You'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy."Comment
-
Probably because states like it when candidates spend money on them. Any state that goes to a proportional electoral vote distribution system structured like the one Colorado has proposed renders itself completely irrelevant in future elections. If the election is close, the candidates would be fighting over a single contested vote, and that's just not an effective use of campaign funds.
The other two states that split their electoral votes--Maine and Nebraska--do it a bit more sensibly. The winner in each congressional district takes that vote, and the overall winner gets the two extra votes.
Originally posted by CaptaiN_JacKComment
-
sorry phil,Originally posted by cphilip
but the states have the right to choose HOW they distribute their electoral votes,according to the constituition. nowhere does it say ithas to be a winner take all system or anything of the sorty. All states would have to do ispass a law (or ammend their constitution depending on their const). No federal action is required.
Comment
-
There is NO such thing at all Electoral college members are SUPPOSED to bring the results of the popular vote of their state to the final process to elect a President for the Federation of States. They never were nor should be free to decide on thier own. they are sent to represent their state and its popular wishes States are allowed to chose HOW they chose electoral college members of thier states. But to the winner of the popular vote goes the votes of those members.Originally posted by Kevmaster
Here is a bit of historical overview to help understand why and how this came about and why this splitting does not make sense. Its because each state is sort of collecting its popular votes and then relaying them to the Federation.
One idea was to have the Congress choose the president. This idea was rejected, however, because some felt that making such a choice would be too divisive an issue and leave too many hard feelings in the Congress. Others felt that such a procedure would invite unseemly political bargaining, corruption, and perhaps even interference from foreign powers. Still others felt that such an arrangement would upset the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government. A second idea was to have the State legislatures select the president. This idea, too, was rejected out of fears that a president so beholden to the State legislatures might permit them to erode federal authority and thus undermine the whole idea of a federation. A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones. Finally, a so-called "Committee of Eleven" in the Constitutional Convention proposed an indirect election of the president through a College of Electors. The function of the College of Electors in choosing the president can be likened to that in the Roman Catholic Church of the College of Cardinals selecting the Pope. The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party. The structure of the Electoral College can be traced to the Centurial Assembly system of the Roman Republic. Under that system, the adult male citizens of Rome were divided, according to their wealth, into groups of 100 (called Centuries). Each group of 100 was entitled to cast only one vote either in favor or against proposals submitted to them by the Roman Senate. In the Electoral College system, the States serve as the Centurial groups (though they are not, of course, based on wealth), and the number of votes per State is determined by the size of each State's Congressional delegation. Still, the two systems are similar in design and share many of the same advantages and disadvantages. The similarities between the Electoral College and classical institutions are not accidental. Many of the Founding Fathers were well schooled in ancient history and its lessons.
Sorry but there will be federal challenges to assigning partial candidates. It says the popular vote decides how electoral college members will vote. It has long been expected one or more may vote otherwise. But to mandate that to state law would then cause a federal challenge. Individualism is there. But these sorts of State mandates go well beyond that. And would indeed cause a Federal crisis and reaction. Mark my words. it is indeed a step towords states affecting Constitutional amendment. If you pass a state law that mandates a change in the Constitutional Federal Election process it is FEDERALY constitutionaly challengable. You will cause all states to then have a stake in what your doing in your state to MANDATE a change in the Consitution of this United States. Plain and simple a concern for other states. And therefore something the Federal Government will end up dealing with.
What you all seem to forget is we are a federation of cooperative states. All to soon fogotten when people propose National programs is that each state has a role and is independent and should be in charge of most of these besides national defense. That one is a cooperative effort. But all to often we forget and we rely more and more on the Government to do this. Not only that but then they are forced to cooerce states for money and cooperation to do them. Regardless of the popular vote of that states wishes.Last edited by cphilip; 10-18-2004, 07:43 PM.Comment
-
Every vote should be counted, with the electoral college this does not happen."What we have to accomplish at this time is all the more clear: relentless criticism of all existing conditions, relentless in the sense that the criticism is not afraid of its findings and just as little afraid of the conflict with the powers that be."
- Karl MarxComment
-
cphilip, you ought to get in touch with the state governments of Nebraska and Maine, and let them know that splitting their electors is such a heinous constitutional breach. They've been running that way for a number of years.
The selection of electors is purely a state matter. Indeed, in the early days of the country, some state legislatures opted to appoint electors, forgoing a direct popular vote.
I'm not sure what source you cited, but it ain't the Constitution. Here's what that has to say on the subject:
Nothing in there mandates that the electors are bound to the outcome of the popular vote. Quite to the contrary, the very first line relegates the details to the separate states.Originally posted by US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1Last edited by spantol; 10-18-2004, 11:04 PM.Comment
-
I think some states do split up the electoral votes, and no elector is required to vote for what the popular vote says.
I did a research paper on it last year and that's what I came up with. Perhaps i'm just an idiot
Comment
Comment