nix the EC

[Fobbon Lazyfoot]

The candidate I voted for won last night, but I'm still awfully tired of people spouting garbage about "a massive electoral landslide". The EC doesn't mean anything. It's a silly system. We vote for our state's representatives by a popular vote, yet we vote for our country's representative by the EC.

Speaking of people spouting garbage, I'd just like to say that my generation is full of ignorant, ungrateful, and generally rude little whelps. Next election I'm taking a vacation to somewhere that doesn't give a shit.

[Lurker]

It isn't possible to eliminate the electoral college for the same reason it's a bad idea to eliminate it. Small states would be totally ignored by candidates.

[Select]

Speaking of people spouting garbage, I'd just like to say that my generation is full of ignorant, ungrateful, and generally rude little whelps.

This is true. If ignoring it still pisses you off, I've found the best thing to do is to talk back. Something strong, witty, or biting usually shuts them up. Our generation does not do well with intelligent opposition face to face, but give them the internet and they'll fight all day.

[Ddrak]

It isn't possible to eliminate the electoral college for the same reason it's a bad idea to eliminate it. Small states would be totally ignored by candidates.

Why would this be the case? If anything, the small states would get *more* attention if you nixed the EC because their votes would still count to the popular vote, while at the moment their EC votes are so small that nobody campaigns for them at all. What the EC does is ignores the bulk of the population for a few "battleground" states, while a popular vote would involve everyone.

By definition, removing the EC removes any distinction on a state basis. Besides, if you're going to do that you should also introduce instant runoff voting as well.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

I think the elimination of the EC is a great idea. It would change the entire dynamic of elections. Candidates not only pick battleground states, but they pick the DISTRICTS in those battleground states which will have the most impact on moving the vote tally. Its very similar to the strategy that Obama used against Hillary (may god have no mercy on her non-existant soul). He played a distrcit campaign (along with his very succesful use of caucuses), and he beat the pantsuit off her.

Presidential campaigns have become more focused on winning certain districts in certain states, than winning the confidence of the American people as a whole.

I say this knowing that Obama won the popular vote, and I think the popular vote is what should count.

[Klast Brell]

<Snark>
What's a mater? Suddenly you don't like the constitution?
</Snark>

[Fallakin Kuvari]

I don't think you should nix the EC, but there should be more balance among the numbers each state gets.

[Lurker]

there should be more balance among the numbers each state gets.

Can you give some detail on what you mean by "more balance"?

[Embar Angylwrath]

<Snark>
What's a mater? Suddenly you don't like the constitution?
</Snark>

I love the Constitution. And its Amendments. I just think as a country, we no longer need the EC.

[Partha]

Because, of course, nothing would bespeak balance like having five states determine the election, now, would it?

[Tarfang_Trubasher]

I love the Constitution. And its Amendments. I just think as a country, we no longer need the EC.

I think that can be a dangerous statement. Isn't that a large portion of "fear" out there now about what a Democratic driven bus will do? Replace the EC with 2nd Amendment rights and see what you get.

"I just think as a country, we no longer need the 2nd amendment." -- there are MANY that think this is the case.

I do think something needs to be done about the voting system, though I think it's more in the vein of allowing more than just the two parties onto the ballot and the debates. I literally think the 3rd parties should have a primary, but I'm not sure the complete nightmare (if even) that could be to put together. Imagine this year if Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, and Chuck Baldwin were allowed to have a primary. If they participated, they'd be allowed on the stage with the other two parties.

-TF

[Ddrak]

Replace the EC with 2nd Amendment rights and see what you get.

That's just silly. Replace it with "Prohibition" and you'll get the opposite reaction:

"I just think as a country, we no longer need Prohibition."

I do think something needs to be done about the voting system, though I think it's more in the vein of allowing more than just the two parties onto the ballot and the debates. I literally think the 3rd parties should have a primary, but I'm not sure the complete nightmare (if even) that could be to put together. Imagine this year if Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, and Chuck Baldwin were allowed to have a primary. If they participated, they'd be allowed on the stage with the other two parties.

None of those issues are constitutional. The only thing you need to do to break the two party system is institute an instant runoff voting system, which I believe can also be done without changing the constitution.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

Because, of course, nothing would bespeak balance like having five states determine the election, now, would it?

That's certainly the case now, with the focus on just a few battelground states. That would change if the decision rode on the popular vote.

[Lurker]

That's certainly the case now, with the focus on just a few battelground states. That would change if the decision rode on the popular vote.

Six of one, half dozen of the other. Candidates would still campaign where the population centers are. They would still focus on the states they focus on now because the EC is indirectly based on population.

Obama essentially had the nationwide campaign you think would result from the elimination of the EC. His fundraising and almost limitless army of local volunteers meant he had a massive presence in every area of every state.

[Tarfang_Trubasher]

Major props needs to go to the Obama campaign. They definitely had a solid presence.

Though - If they called me one more f'n time during that last week of the election...OMG. I even asked nicely to "please don't call me" but, that had zero effect. I've seen blogs, real articles, and OP-ED's all over the place saying should Obama run again in 2012, cut the phone calls by 75% and he'd still have enough communications out there.

Replace the EC with 2nd Amendment rights and see what you get.

That's just silly. Replace it with "Prohibition" and you'll get the opposite reaction:

"I just think as a country, we no longer need Prohibition."

I do think something needs to be done about the voting system, though I think it's more in the vein of allowing more than just the two parties onto the ballot and the debates. I literally think the 3rd parties should have a primary, but I'm not sure the complete nightmare (if even) that could be to put together. Imagine this year if Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, and Chuck Baldwin were allowed to have a primary. If they participated, they'd be allowed on the stage with the other two parties.

None of those issues are constitutional. The only thing you need to do to break the two party system is institute an instant runoff voting system, which I believe can also be done without changing the constitution.

While you may find my view "silly" -- I still think it's accurate. Picking prohibition is interesting considering alcohol is grossly under-taxed and has a hand in killing people every year. While prohibition is silly, maybe more strict regulation and taxation could be used to generate funds and protect the citizens, mmm? Anyway, I was making the case that eliminating items that are available Constitutionally could cause people to "panic" or resist debate.

As for your comment on the voting system, I'm definitely open to ideas. I do think it's borked and needs upgraded. While the EC is still population driven it still allows two or three little states to stand against the bigger states.

-TF

[Partha]

Because, of course, nothing would bespeak balance like having five states determine the election, now, would it?

That's certainly the case now, with the focus on just a few battelground states. That would change if the decision rode on the popular vote.

So, in other words, you'd be happy with what you describe as the same thing we have now, only instead of spending money in Ohio and Indiana, they should spend it in the expensive media outlets like New York and California.

Uh-huh.

[Kulaf]

The EC is a somewhat outmoded idea that the unwashed masses were uneducated about candidates and might need the "electors" to make a more informed decesion. Now we have almost too much information about candidates.

[Select]

We have the information, but it doesn't mean people seek it out. The ignorant comments about candidates were pathetic given the resources we have to find the truth.

[Ddrak]

They would still focus on the states they focus on now because the EC is indirectly based on population.

No they wouldn't. They'd focus on broad national issues rather than specific states because there'd be far more bang for the buck in getting votes from everywhere rather than artificially limiting yourself to state boundaries. A vote in RI is worth the same as a vote in CA or a vote in OH, whereas with the EC votes in 40 of the 50 states are essentially worthless on any remotely close election.

Obama essentially had the nationwide campaign you think would result from the elimination of the EC. His fundraising and almost limitless army of local volunteers meant he had a massive presence in every area of every state.

Yes, and Obama style campaigns would flourish ever more with a pure popular vote. I would think that was a good thing.

Dd