- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What is the argument for the electoral college instead of a popular vote?
Posted on 11/8/16 at 10:47 am to WhiskeyPapa
Posted on 11/8/16 at 10:47 am to WhiskeyPapa
Lincoln won in 1860 in the EC despite the fact that his name did not appear on the ballots of 10 states.
0
Posted on 11/8/16 at 10:47 am to Hugo Stiglitz
quote:
It's was designed to prevent candidates from only campaigning in the cities. With the Electoral college, they have to campaign to all states and populations, urban and rural.
It's actually a good system.
Now this might be the best reason I've heard.
But a rebuttal would be that GOP doesn't waste time in Blue States and Dems don't waste time in Red States. So its actually have the opposite effect as this.
The votes for each would actually matter in those states if it was popular vote.
This post was edited on 11/8/16 at 10:49 am
Posted on 11/8/16 at 10:48 am to TheCaterpillar
That should never, ever happen.
Even if you like the EC, the EV balance is questionable.
Even if you like the EC, the EV balance is questionable.
Posted on 11/8/16 at 10:49 am to TheCaterpillar
quote:
But those states with higher populations get more EC votes anyway.
Wyoming has 3 electoral college votes and has a population of 586,0000
California has 55 electoral college votes and has a population of almost 40 million
Therefore, each of Wyoming's electoral college votes represents about 195,333 of its states citizens whereas in California each votes represents 711,723
The electoral college lets small states have a "bigger" say in Presidential elections
If California had the same ratio as Wyoming, it would have over 200 electoral college votes for example
This post was edited on 11/8/16 at 10:50 am
Posted on 11/8/16 at 10:49 am to TheCaterpillar
Electoral college allows small population states to have a voice.
Regardless of population a state can get no fewer than 3 votes.
The Framers of the constitution fully understood that.
The also understood giving voice to the less populous states when they wrote Article V of the constitution that requires 2/3 of the states to ratify an amendment.
Regardless of population a state can get no fewer than 3 votes.
The Framers of the constitution fully understood that.
The also understood giving voice to the less populous states when they wrote Article V of the constitution that requires 2/3 of the states to ratify an amendment.
Posted on 11/8/16 at 10:50 am to Pilot Tiger
quote:
Wyoming has 3 electoral college votes and has a population of 586,0000
California has 55 electoral college votes and has a population of almost 40 million
Therefore, each of Wyoming's electoral college votes represents about 195,333 of its states citizens whereas in California each votes represents 711,723
The electoral college lets small states have a "bigger" say in Presidential elections
I get this and it makes sense, but the popular vote would have still picked the winner every election in the last 130 years besides W in 2000.
Posted on 11/8/16 at 10:51 am to TheCaterpillar
quote:
But a rebuttal would be that GOP doesn't waste time in Blue States and Dems don't waste time in Red States
Trump visited Michigan multiple times. So no
Posted on 11/8/16 at 10:51 am to TheCaterpillar
It was originally set up to keep the coasts from running every election. And now look what's happening - the coasts are pretty much running elections
Basically, your vote counts more if you live in North Dakota than it does if you live in California, Texas, New York, etc.
Basically, your vote counts more if you live in North Dakota than it does if you live in California, Texas, New York, etc.
Posted on 11/8/16 at 10:52 am to Pilot Tiger
quote:
Wyoming has 3 electoral college votes and has a population of 586,0000
California has 55 electoral college votes and has a population of almost 40 million
Therefore, each of Wyoming's electoral college votes represents about 195,333 of its states citizens whereas in California each votes represents 711,723
The electoral college lets small states have a "bigger" say in Presidential elections
If California had the same ratio as Wyoming, it would have over 200 electoral college votes for example
Ok, but
quote:
In February 2013, California had 18,055,783 registered voters, comprising 48.8 percent of its total population. Of those registered voters, 7,932,373 (43.9 percent) were registered Democrats, and 5,225,675 (28.9 percent) were Republicans.
So instead of it just going all blue, it would actually be a lot more republican leaning than people realize. It would still really matter to campaign there.
And New York, the GOP would get 33% and not 0%.
quote:
There were 5,792,497 registered Democrats as of April 1 — a puny increase of 14,037 since November, state Board of Elections show. The Republican Party had 2,731,688 members, up just 12,358 over the same period.
This post was edited on 11/8/16 at 10:55 am
Posted on 11/8/16 at 10:53 am to TheCaterpillar
The problem I have with the EC is the winner take all system
Award a percentage of the EC votes according to the % of the vote the candidate gets in that state
Award a percentage of the EC votes according to the % of the vote the candidate gets in that state
This post was edited on 11/8/16 at 10:55 am
Posted on 11/8/16 at 10:56 am to cajun12
quote:
Award a percentage of the EC votes according to the % of the vote the candidate gets in that state
That would fix the issue I guess.
And maintain the stronger EC vote value in the smaller states.
I'm on board!
Posted on 11/8/16 at 10:56 am to TexasTiger90
quote:
It was originally set up to keep the coasts from running every election.
It was originally setup when there was only 1 coast.
ETA: Cali statehood 1850, Oregon, 1859, Washington 1889
This post was edited on 11/8/16 at 10:59 am
Posted on 11/8/16 at 10:58 am to TheCaterpillar
Technically, states don't even have to hold an election to allocate their electors for President. This was not uncommon in the 1800s.
At its heart, the EC is the truest system to the principles of the Republic. The President is selected by the various states, not the entire population.
At its heart, the EC is the truest system to the principles of the Republic. The President is selected by the various states, not the entire population.
Posted on 11/8/16 at 10:59 am to TheCaterpillar
Check & Balance; as intended by the Founding Fathers.
This post was edited on 11/8/16 at 11:00 am
Posted on 11/8/16 at 10:59 am to TheCaterpillar
Al Gore, 2000
All the argument I need
All the argument I need
Posted on 11/8/16 at 10:59 am to Roaad
quote:
Al Gore, 2000
All the argument I need
Because W was the GOAT
Posted on 11/8/16 at 11:04 am to TheCaterpillar
Too many people think we are a Democracy. We are not, and I'm glad we aren't.
Posted on 11/8/16 at 11:05 am to AndyCBR
quote:Actually, CA and NY have more population per electoral college votes than most other states, so it doesn't advantage Democrats.
It doesn't seem to work so well.
Demi have population centers like CA and NY locked up.
They have a built in advantage.
Look at the chart:
A lot of rural states that are heavily conservative get proportionally more representation in the electoral college.
This post was edited on 11/8/16 at 11:07 am
Posted on 11/8/16 at 11:07 am to cajun12
quote:
The problem I have with the EC is the winner take all system
Award a percentage of the EC votes according to the % of the vote the candidate gets in that state
That's what Nebraska and Maine do.
It's called the Congressional District System.
Posted on 11/8/16 at 11:08 am to Hog on the Hill
quote:
Actually, CA and NY have more population per electoral college votes than most other states, so it doesn't advantage Democrats.
It doesn't advantage anyone really IMO.
Cali 3/7 registered voters in Cali is GOP, 4/7 Dem.
1/3 GOP in NY, 2/3 Dem.
Texas is 60/40 GOP.
There are millions and millions and millions of voters in those states that essentially don't matter.
This post was edited on 11/8/16 at 11:11 am
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News