getting rid of the electoral college??

hillbillyhunter1 · 07-20-2010, 10:23 AM

http://www.govtech.com/dc/articles/766504

Looks like some want just a popular vote and to render ineffective the electoral college. If something like this would grow national momentum, it sure would be affront to non-urban America in regards to their stake in national elections. Hopefully this initiative falls flat.

Howler · 07-20-2010, 02:18 PM

Dems. would love it since most highly populated areas are inhabited by a higher percentage of Dems.

The Rev · 07-20-2010, 04:23 PM

The Libs will do whatever they can to TRY to keep power! They know their butts are going to get handed to them next election and they are trying all they can, legal or not! Why do you think they are stirring up the NAACP about racism in the Tea Party? Just a political ploy!

CalHunter · 07-20-2010, 06:25 PM

This is a bad idea.

salukipv1 · 07-20-2010, 10:24 PM

really don't see it happening....ever....

if anything, that voting method where you get a 1st and 2nd vote, if your 1st vote was for a 3rd party candidate, then they take your vote and move it to your 2nd chioce candidate...

ie if you voted for ralph nader 1st, then they would take your votes and move them over to obama/mccain....

I like this idea, would be nice to see a 3rd party candidate actually having a chance to get elected or at least more of a %.

hillbillyhunter1 · 07-21-2010, 05:12 AM

sal, there seems to be a little confusion about the electoral college process in your post if I'm reading it correctly.

I believe the electoral college works like this (and someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)

Each candidate for President has their own group of electors (people sworn to vote for them should their slate win the popular vote) in a particular state. When a candidate wins the popular vote in that state, the electors for that particular candidate are chosen by default to represent that state in the national electoral process....the actual election. Of course, a presidential candidate needs a majority of electors (nationally) to win. Each state has a set number of electors based on the population of that state (I believe that the number of federal legislators (reps and senators) for each state = the number of electors for that same state).

So it really never matters who comes in second in each state, because the electors for each state are all determined by who wins.

Example: if a certain state has 20 Elector slots to represent it, and candidate A won the popular vote in that stae by only one percent, that candidate still gets ALL the electors for that state. Candidate B (loser) does not get any electors from that state.

I believe this process was set-up so that each state (no matter the size) would have some degree of weight in the national election. If not, the more rural, less populated (usually conservative) states would soon become totally inconsequential...in a pure popular vote.

When the city of Los Angeles has larger population then MT, WY, and UT combined, we can see who'd soon be deciding presidential elections in a purely popular vote....God spare us the day.