I don’t think you completely understand the concept. It’s a fact that the college disproportionally favors smaller states. because of the rules for how the electorates are assigned. The President isn’t elected by the “people” he is elected by the States to represent the states. This is another example of how the states were designed to have more power than the federal government. The people in Alabama don’t want the same government as the people in Connecticut.
And, your vote does count. Did your candidate your state? If not, you are in the minority the Minority never get thier way in a democracy, thats kind of the point. If your state did chose your candidate and he still lost, then your state is in the minority of states, again democracy.
A wise man said to me recently paraphrased: other than possibly of Switzerland The US is the most Democratic nation in the world.
I don’t think you completely understand the concept. It’s a fact that the college disproportionally favors smaller states. because of the rules for how the electorates are assigned. The President isn’t elected by the “people” he is elected by the States to represent the states. This is another example of how the states were designed to have more power than the federal government. The people in Alabama don’t want the same government as the people in Connecticut.
But if i understand right, the whole point to electing senators is to help give even the smallest, most marginallized and stupidest states an equal voice to the bigger, more important and smarter states . . . so this would kind of make them much overrepresented - i.e. the only real democracy is in electing members to the house of representatives. Or am i wrong about this?
The point is that individual states are treated like individuals. Be careful with the small is stupid, they don’t do thinngs my way does not = stupid :wink:
By the way the house of representatives favors the smallest states in the same way the college does.
Here’s an example:
Combined populations of WY, AK, VT, and ND = aprox. 2,317,000 each of these states has 1 Representative
Population of AZ = aprox. 5,580,811 - 4 Representatives
I don’t think you completely understand the concept. It’s a fact that the college disproportionally favors smaller states. because of the rules for how the electorates are assigned. The President isn’t elected by the “people” he is elected by the States to represent the states. This is another example of how the states were designed to have more power than the federal government. The people in Alabama don’t want the same government as the people in Connecticut.
Actually, it doesn’t. It favors larger states. All of them get 2 votes for their senators. With that being equal, the rest of the votes equate to population. That’s why candidates shoot for the big states - California, New York, Texas, etc. - and hope to sweep up some of the smaller states. If it mattered to a single vote, then it would be MORE representative of the population. And you last point is moot, no matter the way the presidential election is held.
And, your vote does count. Did your candidate your state? If not, you are in the minority the Minority never get thier way in a democracy, thats kind of the point. If your state did chose your candidate and he still lost, then your state is in the minority of states, again democracy.
A wise man said to me recently paraphrased: other than possibly of Switzerland The US is the most Democratic nation in the world.
I disagree here as well. In a presidential election, your vote doesn’t count. That’s why the popular vote recipient can lose, and has. In my eyes, the presidential election is more for show than actual result. You have no impact whatsoever.
And your note about minorities is completely off. It’s not the point of democracy. A true democracy would say the minority base needs just as much representation as the majority. There has to be some protection - otherwise, it’s not a democracy but mob rule. Furthermore, depending on what you look at, the minority and majority could be comprised of anyone. Is it by gender? Age? Race? Hardly a way to go. Other things to consider - why should men decide what happens with women, a la abortion? Or the heterosexuals on gay issues? Etc, etc.
By the way the house of representatives favors the smallest states in the same way the college does.
No, like CC said, it’s the Senate. The House is based on population. Remember the Connecticut Compromise…
Well if you don’t understand the point I am trying to make it’s my fault for being unable to explain clearly enough. I do suggest you do a bit of research on pro=college view points so that perhaps someone else can explain better than I.
dont fret dezrtfish, i understood perfectly. of course these damn liberals, spew venom about the electoral college, b/c they blame it for bush winning. and so they cry about it. constantly. they would rather have the states rights and the intention of the founders by the states LETTING themselves be governed by a central government if it keeps to the original contract, thrown away so they can dominate with the populations of shitheads in new york and the douchbag eastcoast and those retarded hippies on the west coast. the oceans must screw with the mind. to much salinity in the air.
the electoral college is there as a function of states rights. this isnt some huge centralized government piece of crap socialist democracy. its a damn good democracy without the socialism. the electoral votes give more sway to states with more population, and that sounds democratic to me. more people, more votes = a little extra voting power for a state. just like the house of reps is their to let more populous states have a little extra clout also. the senate makes all states equal in votes.
the whole setup is a great, fantastic compromise that works well. and will continue to work well. the states if they see themselves getting screwed hardcore by a “new and improved” populous vote system, under the contract as it is, could just walk away. what state would want to get royally screwed over by shitheads. or they could group together and attack blockade and starve into submission those shitheads. liberals just dont like it because they lost to bush,……twice. nuff said.
liberals just dont like it because they lost to bush,……twice. nuff said.
having a electoral college without take all policy would be a more democractic process. the small staes would be worth more (still have 3 points) while big sttates woun’t be as importan you can get 14 of the 22 points for the state instead off all 22. that would be better off the smaller states. also dems in the south repulicans in the north etc wont fell like there vote counts as nothing.
you would just make other peoples votes count as nothing but people who you prefer to have their votes count as nothing. like people in small states.
ahh, the hypocracy, “its terrible if it happens to me, but i would love to make it happen to you”
didnt jesus say one of the worst things to be was a hypocrite, maybe right after lazy people with no worth(the fig tree) –(welfare bad?)
having a electoral college without take all policy would be a more democractic process. the small staes would be worth more (still have 3 points) while big sttates woun’t be as importan you can get 14 of the 22 points for the state instead off all 22. that would be better off the smaller states. also dems in the south repulicans in the north etc wont fell like there vote counts as nothing.
I would be interested in seeing what if any effect this would have had on the 2004 elections.
you would just make other peoples votes count as nothing
whos vote would count and nothing and who is that happening?
having a electoral college without take all policy would be a more democractic process. the small staes would be worth more (still have 3 points) while big sttates woun’t be as importan you can get 14 of the 22 points for the state instead off all 22. that would be better off the smaller states. also dems in the south repulicans in the north etc wont fell like there vote counts as nothing.
thats your quote cyan….
you would have the small states be royally screwed by trying to divy up votes. we all know those new england states are so freaking blue its sick. they are more eurpoean than american, and screw europe, they have no histroy anyone would want. and no, i’ve heard this before, but only by liberals, who are dying, just dying for any extra electoral college vote. forget it, we arent changing our system and liberals will not be helped.
dont fret dezrtfish, i understood perfectly. of course these damn liberals, spew venom about the electoral college, b/c they blame it for bush winning. and so they cry about it. constantly. they would rather have the states rights and the intention of the founders by the states LETTING themselves be governed by a central government if it keeps to the original contract, thrown away so they can dominate with the populations of shitheads in new york and the douchbag eastcoast and those retarded hippies on the west coast. the oceans must screw with the mind. to much salinity in the air.
the electoral college is there as a function of states rights. this isnt some huge centralized government piece of crap socialist democracy. its a damn good democracy without the socialism. the electoral votes give more sway to states with more population, and that sounds democratic to me. more people, more votes = a little extra voting power for a state. just like the house of reps is their to let more populous states have a little extra clout also. the senate makes all states equal in votes.
the whole setup is a great, fantastic compromise that works well. and will continue to work well. the states if they see themselves getting screwed hardcore by a “new and improved” populous vote system, under the contract as it is, could just walk away. what state would want to get royally screwed over by shitheads. or they could group together and attack blockade and starve into submission those shitheads. liberals just dont like it because they lost to bush,……twice. nuff said.
I’m not surprised you went the “damn liberals” route. The setup is not great. Every person in America could abstain from voting and someone would be elected. I’m sorry, but the electoral college is antiquated. You have given no reason to uphold it, because the MAJORITY of voters got screwed over by shitheads because of the bad system. Explain how that is ok - you can’t. And I was saying this BEFORE Bush got reelected. And this could go against a Republican candidate just the same. It’s about being fair.
you would just make other peoples votes count as nothing but people who you prefer to have their votes count as nothing. like people in small states.
ahh, the hypocracy, “its terrible if it happens to me, but i would love to make it happen to you”
didnt jesus say one of the worst things to be was a hypocrite, maybe right after lazy people with no worth(the fig tree) –(welfare bad?)
You would know about hypocrisy. Following this comment you negate others’ votes because you don’t agree with them. I’m not surprised here either.
And your note about minorities is completely off. It’s not the point of democracy. A true democracy would say the minority base needs just as much representation as the majority. There has to be some protection - otherwise, it’s not a democracy but mob rule. Furthermore, depending on what you look at, the minority and majority could be comprised of anyone. Is it by gender? Age? Race? Hardly a way to go. Other things to consider - why should men decide what happens with women, a la abortion? Or the heterosexuals on gay issues? Etc, etc.
First off I wasn’t referring to minorities as a class, I was referring to Minority oppinion on specific issue. If you are out voted you are in the minority on the issue in question. If the issue decided harms the minority then the Judicial branch steps in and over rules. TRUE Democracy IS mob rule that’s why we aren’t a True Demoracy. Thats why the judicial branch of the government is equally as powerfull as the legislative and executive.
Ever heard the quote “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.”?
On a side note, men are involved on the issue of abortion because roughly half of the aborted people in the country would have been men. Why don’t we let retarded people vote on whether retarded people should be able to get drivers licences. :roll:
having a electoral college without take all policy would be a more democractic process. the small staes would be worth more (still have 3 points) while big sttates woun’t be as importan you can get 14 of the 22 points for the state instead off all 22. that would be better off the smaller states. also dems in the south repulicans in the north etc wont fell like there vote counts as nothing.
thats your quote cyan….
you would have the small states be royally screwed by trying to divy up votes. we all know those new england states are so freaking blue its sick. they are more eurpoean than american, and screw europe, they have no histroy anyone would want. and no, i’ve heard this before, but only by liberals, who are dying, just dying for any extra electoral college vote. forget it, we arent changing our system and liberals will not be helped.
you feel as if the democrats wiuldbe elected to office all the time if this syestem was implmented. thought you belived in dmcracy. you say you dislike israel beacuse it the minnoty ruling over the majority. so what you are saying know would oprres the democratic party so your party could stay in power(which is the minoty) this seem very hypocritical. http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=8032.180
well the dems would not be automatically elected to office. lets look at Californa.(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/elections/2004/ca/) wel bush revived 44% of the votes while John Kerry recived 54%. normally kerry would get all 55 points(which is alot). .4455=24.2; .5455= 29.7 KErry would have gotten 30 points and bush would have gotten 24 points. that puts bush at a differnce of +48 points than what the regular syestem would of had. what you sugest aacutuall throws out like 40% of the nations votes.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/elections/2004/ma/) MA is in new england “more european than europe” really liberal and where KErry was from . it is worht 12 points and bush won 37% of the votes. thats .37*12=4.44 or 4 points in which bush would have had in Kerry’s home state 4 points that would have went undemocraticaly to JOhn KErry. so New england actually would give some points to the republicans
so i still belieave that a more democratic way of running the elections would to have the electrol syestem but to take the winner take all poilcy away. this will stop 40% of the population from having “worthless votes”
doesn’t nebraska already do this?
yes sir we do. go huskers.
i think we are the only state to do so. and for the record, the system is good as is. it doesnt need to be changed. hell look at the BCS, as soon as you change something all anyone does is bitch about it.
so i still belieave that a more democratic way of running the elections would to have the electrol syestem but to take the winner take all poilcy away. this will stop 40% of the population from having “worthless votes”
its still up to the states to decide who they want to be president. if you live in a state with worthless votes, your beef is with your own state, not the national process.
I have to ask this considering what we are currently discussing…
What in the hell did y’all do with Stanley?
:mrgreen:
@ncscswitch:
I have to ask this considering what we are currently discussing…
What in the hell did y’all do with Stanley?
:mrgreen:
cause all the stanlys of america are lossing there vote to the majortiy of the state. think almost one half of all stanlys loss there vote. :)
