sandy2 sandy2

Electoral College Tie

▼

Electoral College Tie

from JoeUser Forums
USA Today reported that it is possible for the electoral college votes to tie this year for the presidential election, with both candidates getting 269 votes. If every state stays the same color except for New Hampshire and West Virginia, in which Kerry is competitive, then the electoral college will tie for only the second time ever. That would be HORRIBLE. HORRIBLE. Bush would be expected to win, with 30/50 ths of the State Delegations currently controlled by Republicans. If Democrats regain control of the senate, then we could have Bush as president, and Edwards as vice president.

In the event of an electoral college tie:
"The Constitution has a process to deal with a tie in the Electoral College, which has happened once, in 1800:

• Newly elected House of Representatives would meet on Jan. 6, 2005, to choose a president from among the three top finishers. Each state delegation gets one vote.

• Newly elected Senate would choose vice president. Each senator gets one vote. "

Let us hope this does not happen.

What are your thoughts on the electoral college?
politics
13,527 views 43 replies
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
Landen your picture did not come out, please repost.
Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #28 from PolMach Forums Top
With the electoral college, it gives candididates to avoid the non swing states. And the electoral college doesn't cause the candidates to go to big cities, they do that anyways because it is based on the state results not the city results, and they can for example win the whole state of michigan by concentrating on the detroit metro area. Popular vote would give each person a fair and eqaul vote. And the electoral college doesn't make candidates do things for the small states. Who's visited alaska? Who cars about alaska's three votes?


Hooray I am all for Los Angeles, New York, Detroit, Houston, Dallas, San Francisco, etc. for deciding who the American President is for the rest of us, yes let's make votes in smaller states null and void, come on Popular Vote system, I don't want anybody to visit any other state than those with cities that have populations for 3 Million, for surely they should and would know more than the rest of America. Only Big Cities should decide elections, hooray Popular Vote System, Alaska, Hawaii, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Oklahoma, New Mexico, etc. don't care because their bigger more populus brothers surely know what is to be done, and those states surely know all the issues that effect all the states, and since they know than surely we should entrust them to elect Our President, hooray once again to you Popular Vote System for surely you will stick up for the BIG MAN so we can forget all about the Little Man.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
Unless I misunderstood my Government class, one vote from a poor farmer in Nebraska would carry as much weight as it would from a rich investment banker in NYC if we switched to the popular vote. Moving away from the electoral college system would force candidates to look at the country as a much larger piece of the puzzle. I live in a non-battleground state and I think Kerry has been here once and I don't think Bush has been here at all. When a handful of states can cause the entire political balance of power to be shifted, then it's time to think about what's fair to the rest of the country. Why did Florida or Ohio or West Virginia (key batteground states) get to pick the President?

In the most simplistic and idealistic terms, the electoral college has disenfranchised the American voting public. It works against all of the amendments that have been added insuring that any man or women, regardless of race, religion, creed and other such federally protected statuses, over the age of 18 and legal US citizens have the right to make their choices known in a fair election. The electoral college, simply put, doesn't give us that vote.

Or, I could just be ranting out of my rear end here.
Reply #30 from PolMach Forums Top
I will ONLY and reiterate ONLY ever consider a popular vote system, when voter fraud is addressed, until than Popular Vote is still a system that can be so easily exploited with voter fraud that you can guarantee the candidate who wins will have the most votes from the dead, cats, dogs, voters registered multiple times, etc. and that the votes of national service programs (Military, Peace Corp, etc.) people who don't vote for that candidate will not have their votes counted.
Reply #31 from PolMach Forums Top
Popular vote would give each person a fair and eqaul vote. And the electoral college doesn't make candidates do things for the small states. Who's visited alaska? Who cars about alaska's three votes?


Actually, I thought that one of the points of the electoral college system was to ENCOURAGE candidates to visit there. Think of it this way: Alaska has very few people living there, right? So no candidate in his right mind would bother to visit Alaska if we were on a popular vote system. Not enough people live there to make it worth his while. BUT, since Alaska has 3 electoral votes, candidates will visit (maybe not as much as Pennsylvania or Ohio, but they'll visit) because even 3 electoral votes can make the difference. This way, Alaska gets visited, and their issues are addressed.

Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #31 By: MusiKitty - 9/9/2004 11:21:31 PM
Popular vote would give each person a fair and eqaul vote. And the electoral college doesn't make candidates do things for the small states. Who's visited alaska? Who cars about alaska's three votes?



Actually, I thought that one of the points of the electoral college system was to ENCOURAGE candidates to visit there. Think of it this way: Alaska has very few people living there, right? So no candidate in his right mind would bother to visit Alaska if we were on a popular vote system. Not enough people live there to make it worth his while. BUT, since Alaska has 3 electoral votes, candidates will visit (maybe not as much as Pennsylvania or Ohio, but they'll visit) because even 3 electoral votes can make the difference. This way, Alaska gets visited, and their issues are addressed.


I hate to say this but ShoZan is right. The states with the smaller amount of electorial votes rarely if "ever", get a visit. When was the last time that you heard about a candidate campaining in Alaska? You are correct! That is exactly what the electorial college is supposed to do. But it don't do it very well.
Reply #33 from PolMach Forums Top
One of the things that has been missed thus far is that the electoral college actually prevents candidates from visiting certain states. Kansas for example will vote Republican nearly all the time, therefore it is foolish for Kerry to waste time campaigning when he will get 0 electoral votes since he will be unlikely to get a majority. A popular election would mean that Kerry would spend some time in the state because getting 5-10% more of the vote would help him nationally, even if he didn't carry the state. The electoral college is an anachronism that plays a detrimental role to our representative democracy. While there may have been arguments that the people weren't ready to handle a popular vote in 1800, there is no excuse for this institution which actually prevents a truly democratic election. As to claims that popular vote would put candidates in big cities . . . of course they will campaign where there are the most people. To give small states more representation is to take it from larger states. 100,000 New Yorkers should be the same as 100,000 Iowans, as 100,000 people from any state. Why should your voice be unfairly weakened simply because you live in a larger state. 1 person, 1 vote. Simplest solution is often the best.
Reply #34 from PolMach Forums Top
One of the things that has been missed thus far is that the electoral college actually prevents candidates from visiting certain states. Kansas for example will vote Republican nearly all the time, therefore it is foolish for Kerry to waste time campaigning when he will get 0 electoral votes since he will be unlikely to get a majority.


That is more of a problem with the two party system than the electoral college, and a candidate Z should be able to if he proves such a great alternative to candidate X to sway that state to his cause, look at Bill Clinton versus George HW Bush, look at Reagan versus Mondale, etc.

Not to mention when the idea was thought up, there were such things as large cities and small cities, look at the demographic of the early America, granted there are less numbers, but the principle of your point is still there. If the founding fathers had the choice between an electoral system and popular vote system, why did they go with the electoral college, I mean if you actually debate about it as much as they did, you would gradually see that they had the same thoughts on problems with it as you are pointing out were evident back then (Look at their problems with deciding the numbers of representatives and senators each state gets), but yet they still chose it, because it was to give each STATE and the people of that State, but mainly so that each STATE had a fair and equal vote for a job role that affects all states, and if you can't look at the basic simplicity of that fact, than my argument is lost on you.

Also the problem with even considering a Popular Vote System is the voter fraud problems we have now would decide who is our President, so it will be a race to see who can get the most multiple voter registrations and dead people to vote for them.
Reply #35 from PolMach Forums Top
In the state of Nevada, one election the only thing we got was one Vice President's wife (Tipper). Can't realy remember what race though. But this time, now that the State has gain another vote and we are considered a swing State, we have had multiple visits by both sides.

Some one finaly cares.

Aaah, but I bet no matter who wins we still will get the bump.
Reply #36 from PolMach Forums Top
ShoZan - The issue with candidates not visiting heavily partisan states has 0 to do with the two party system. If there were 3 parties, and one party held a sizable advantage in the state, there would be no reason for the other candidates to go there. A popular vote would mean that every single vote mattered.
As to the founder's intent - 1) They could have been wrong. The founder's, while brilliant, were not omniscient. We have changed what they have done substantially over 200 years. 2) Cities were a lot smaller back then because industrialization hadn't really begun. 3) You say that STATE'S should have an equal vote on the president, but they don't. The electoral system doesn't say each state gets the same # of votes for president (excepting the case of a tie) the system merely denies a fair vote. In the end, the basic simplicity is this - Who should decide who runs the country, the People, or the states? I vote for the people. You?
As to fraud - Voter Fraud could just as easily ruin electoral systems as popular vote. If someone rigged voting, say in Chicago or Florida, then those electoral votes would be fraudulently assigned, improving our system doesn't change fraud, nor does it worsen it.
Reply #37 from PolMach Forums Top
The issue with candidates not visiting heavily partisan states has 0 to do with the two party system. If there were 3 parties, and one party held a sizable advantage in the state,


That still has to do with a two party or how many numbered party system, if you had no parties than it would not matter, and if somebody can't sway a state, is that because that state only likes that party, or is that because the Candidate can't prove him/herself to be a better alternative to the current, or opponent candidate.

Every argument so far has complained about states only voting one way, well if they want the state to vote another way, than shouldn't that candidate prove him/herself to be a better alternative than his/her opponent, I think that still has everything to do with the party system, after all if we truly needed Political Parties so badly, than there would have been an amendment or something written about them.

Cities were a lot smaller back then because industrialization hadn't really begun.


I did say in principle, which you missed the point, even back then there were huge population differences between the states, and the bigger states do have their say by having more electoral votes, granted I said equal, but when it comes to an equal vote amongst the states, you still have to give some more weight to the states with a bigger population, and last time I checked the electoral votes are based on the popular decision of the state, so People not having there say is not valid, basically it boils down that you want somebody in California, or whatever other state telling you how to run your state, if you want that than sure go ahead with the popular vote system because that will be the outcome. We have changed since the days of the Articles of Confederation until the Constitution was adopted, amendments to present day.

People decide how each state votes so Popular vote has been in place since the beginning since everyone could vote with each sucessive amendment that gave them that right to vote.
But, should an ultimate deciding factor for a person to be accepted as President simply boil down to that person won because he got 500,000 votes from California, or should that person win because most of the states chose the other guy, with a straight popular vote system, it will not take into account that most of the states don't want the guy, but those extra 500,000 in a state do, so a decision should be based on the fewest states with the most people, or the most states with the most electoral votes.

I think by going to the Straight Popular Vote system you take away the fact that not all states wanted the candidate, but heck he must be the one everybody wants than, I think not. I would rather have it be that most states chose that person, because last time I checked it was the PEOPLE not the Government that decides how a state will vote for whom, and to bring up time and time again that each state will always side with candidate X because they did so in the past, does not disprove this but shows that somebody can't prove themself to be a better alternative to his/her opponent.
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
The objective of a republic like we have in this country is for the people to be represented by a president they elect. the people don't elect the president, the electoral college does.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #35 By: Lee1776 - 9/10/2004 2:19:12 AM
In the state of Nevada, one election the only thing we got was one Vice President's wife (Tipper). Can't realy remember what race though. But this time, now that the State has gain another vote and we are considered a swing State, we have had multiple visits by both sides.

Some one finaly cares.

Aaah, but I bet no matter who wins we still will get the bump.


Lee1776, just an FYI. That would have been 2000. or possibly 96? "Tipper" is Al Gores wife.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
The public votes for who they want the electors to vote for, but all the electors don't have to vote in the same way and the electors don't have to listen to the voters.
Reply #41 from PolMach Forums Top
The public votes for who they want the electors to vote for, but all the electors don't have to vote in the same way and the electors don't have to listen to the voters.


Than it's time to enact laws to rectify it, pressure your perspective state to pass laws requireing electors to vote for the victor of their state or face criminal punishment.
Personally I think it is blatantly wrong and that elector seeks to undermine our system. If that elector votes for a person other than the winner of the state they should be punished without exception, no matter how that elector feels about so and so, and some states that I know have seperate sets of electors, a set of electors who Vote for Bush, a set for Kerry, a set for each third party candidate, just so that each elector votes for who they are supposed to by sending whichever perspective set of the candidate who wins to Washington to vote.
Reply #42 from PolMach Forums Top
The objective of a republic like we have in this country is for the people to be represented by a president they elect. the people don't elect the president, the electoral college does.


Yes a republic of states, each state ruled by the people of that state, to go to a straight popular vote system suggests that it does not matter which state you vote in, so I can go across the border and vote for a governor, etc. along with a President. We are the United States, it should be the Most States not the Most People, if you want the Most People, than you won't mind me voting in your state come election time, but you do because I am not apart of that state, so why should there be a difference when it comes to President, both parties would LOVE to move to the popular vote system because they can always dig up the votes they need to win the entire election by just manipulating one state, when it comes to an electoral college, you are going to have to manipulate many states, lot harder to do than one state or one city.

Bet I am going to hear about Florida used as reason against my argument this time, but Florida was over, and than they both helped to drag it down into the mud, both should be ashamed, somebody should have been the better man and walked away after the first time, not continue to press for a second and third, because of that they have tarnished the image of the Electoral College system, and that was just sick, things like that are UN-AMERICAN, because they took their will over that of an American one.
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why should I care where you vote under a popular vote system, as long as you are only voting for president and you only vote once? they can always dig up the votes they need to win the entire election by just manipulating one state, when it comes to an electoral college, you are going to have to manipulate many states, lot harder to do than one state or one city. [/quote|... Yes because first of all the population of one state is enough to win an election. Second of all, I am sure they could win that whole state. third of all, I would be fine with the electoral college if you got rid of the senators electorates.