Jim I was thinking about it, and before i would be for removing the electoral college.

But heres the problem i keep getting to in my head.
Its the state's job to elect the president, thats not going to change even if they get rid of the electoral college unless they amend the constitution.

So heres the problem.
Currently, like we had in retarded Florida (glad to live here) we had a problem with votes etc etc. So if they couldn't get a vote certified before the deadline the state congress would then put its electoral votes towards whichever candidate it wanted. Which makes sense to me because its really the states jobs to elect the president.

So we remove the electoral college and we have just votes is all. What if there is another screw up and then the states have to vote for the president. Do they vote all of the registered voters in their state towards a candidate like they would do with electoral votes? What specifically would happen?

I mean i know 999/1000 times we won't ever have a problem but once we do we don't have the saftey net of the state congress can pick where to put their votes. I mean i guess they could vote all their registered voters towards a candidate but they would probably annoy me more then if they with their electoral votes.

William Wheatley
Coldfusion Guru

    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: G
  To: CF-Community
  Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 8:33 AM
  Subject: Electoral College

  How? How will sparsely populated states lose their voice????

  If 11 people live in Alaska, then dammit, Alaska should get 11 votes if all of it's citizens vote.

  I just dont see how thats such a problem. I see it as a much bigger problem if those 11 citizens all of a sudden get 11 electoral votes. 11 is a much higher % of 270, than it is of 290 million.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: dana tierney
    To: CF-Community
    Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 8:02 PM
    Subject: Re: DNC

    What about the argument that sparsely populated states will lose their
    voice if you do away with the electoral college though?

    Dana

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
    Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:51:37 -0400
    Subject: RE: DNC
    To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

    True (and I don't mean to imply that you shouldn't vote!) but that is the
    exception to the rule.  Even then every single vote doesn't count - once the
    state is pretty well won then any other votes simply don't matter much.

    For example I know (watch out, big difficult prediction here!) that Kerry
    will win Massachusetts.  So as a Massachusetts resident I'll go and vote as
    I will and be done with it.  But now there's trouble!  It looks like he
    might be slipping!  There's really nothing to be done here: if I convince
    another 50,000 people to vote (in MA) they're votes mean nothing, they can't
    do more than has already been done.

    This has a lot to do with the Electoral college and a lot to do with the
    media.  If the polling results were closed until all votes were in it might
    make it less likely that somebody would say "my states already decided, I'm
    not going out".  If the election were decided on the popular vote it would
    offer the opportunity for people voting in "clearly decided" states to feel
    their vote was better heard.

    All told I truly think that the rational for the Electoral College has
    passed.

    Jim Davis

    From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
    Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 8:30 PM

    To: CF-Community
    Subject: Re: DNC

    yeah but... look at all the states that were won or lost by a few
    hundred votes last time.________________________________
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]

Reply via email to