I'm still going to vote,but, if the electoral vote determines who wins for president, why vote for president at all? All the opinions and polling that's taking place to see who's ahead, when none of it factors in to the outcome? So if Gore gets the majority of electoral votes, and W wins the vote of the people, we're still stuck with Gore! What kind of system is that? Am I missing something here, or is that pretty much how it boils down? By the way, Gore's ahead by quite a bit in the electoral count.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Electoral Vote Decides Presiden
- Thread starter gunrack
- Start date
The electoral voteing system was inacted before commumication where such that voteing results where easy to pass on to a centeral point.It needs to be changed.In this day and age the vote could be tabulated allmost as fast as people could do the voteing.We would then be a true popular vote system.
------------------
Bob--- Age and deceit will overcome youth and speed.
I'm old and deceitful.
------------------
Bob--- Age and deceit will overcome youth and speed.
I'm old and deceitful.
gunrack,
How do you see Gore up greatly in the electoral votes?
I just posted in a topic way below about polls. How Clinton was shown up 23% by Newsweek in 1996. He only won by 8%. Battleground poll had Clinton up 9% in 1996 and he won by 8%. Battleground poll has Bush up 3% this year. They are an accurate poll.
Why is there an electoral college?? Astoundingly enough because the Founders wanted the states to have some power.
By the by, Bush is leading, according to the NYT, in VA by 10, Indiana by 10- a good chunk of electoral votes and by 1, according to a Portrait of America poll, in Tennessee.
If NRA can rally the gunowners of Penn and Bush can keep Florida, it could very well be Bush's; however, it will probably be the closest election since 1960.
madison
ps. Grab a friend or two and make sure they get out to vote - especially if they vote Bush. No. ONLY if they are voting Bush
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gunrack:
I'm still going to vote,but, if the electoral vote determines who wins for president, why vote for president at all? All the opinions and polling that's taking place to see who's ahead, when none of it factors in to the outcome? So if Gore gets the majority of electoral votes, and W wins the vote of the people, we're still stuck with Gore! What kind of system is that? Am I missing something here, or is that pretty much how it boils down? By the way, Gore's ahead by quite a bit in the electoral count.[/quote]
[This message has been edited by madison46 (edited September 21, 2000).]
How do you see Gore up greatly in the electoral votes?
I just posted in a topic way below about polls. How Clinton was shown up 23% by Newsweek in 1996. He only won by 8%. Battleground poll had Clinton up 9% in 1996 and he won by 8%. Battleground poll has Bush up 3% this year. They are an accurate poll.
Why is there an electoral college?? Astoundingly enough because the Founders wanted the states to have some power.
By the by, Bush is leading, according to the NYT, in VA by 10, Indiana by 10- a good chunk of electoral votes and by 1, according to a Portrait of America poll, in Tennessee.
If NRA can rally the gunowners of Penn and Bush can keep Florida, it could very well be Bush's; however, it will probably be the closest election since 1960.
madison
ps. Grab a friend or two and make sure they get out to vote - especially if they vote Bush. No. ONLY if they are voting Bush
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gunrack:
I'm still going to vote,but, if the electoral vote determines who wins for president, why vote for president at all? All the opinions and polling that's taking place to see who's ahead, when none of it factors in to the outcome? So if Gore gets the majority of electoral votes, and W wins the vote of the people, we're still stuck with Gore! What kind of system is that? Am I missing something here, or is that pretty much how it boils down? By the way, Gore's ahead by quite a bit in the electoral count.[/quote]
[This message has been edited by madison46 (edited September 21, 2000).]
beemberb,
Don't know about getting rid of electoral college. Seems bad way, but I sure hate giving up state power of any sort.
I would like to see it changed to where each state's electoral count was the same (ie. CA was only worth one and RI was only worth one) A candidate would have to win the majority of states to govern. Course that could just make things worse.
What I hate in CA is LA and San Fran having such power over the rest of the state due to their population size.
madison
Don't know about getting rid of electoral college. Seems bad way, but I sure hate giving up state power of any sort.
I would like to see it changed to where each state's electoral count was the same (ie. CA was only worth one and RI was only worth one) A candidate would have to win the majority of states to govern. Course that could just make things worse.
What I hate in CA is LA and San Fran having such power over the rest of the state due to their population size.
madison
WorldNetDaily is a conservative reporting organization and has Gore ahead in the electoral game: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_dougherty/20000921_xnjdo_gore_leads.shtml
If everyone who like Bush decides that it is crazy to vote because of the Electorial College, then Gore wins. So, don't miss the whole point of going through the exercise of voting.
If everyone who like Bush decides that it is crazy to vote because of the Electorial College, then Gore wins. So, don't miss the whole point of going through the exercise of voting.
Easy RMC,
I'm north of Sacramento by just a few miles. Our Assy'man and Senator come to our Friends of the NRA Dinners ! Sad thing is, the Assy'man wins the raffles !
Get the politicians out of Sacramento and it would be an Okay place.
I would like a split.
madison
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RMc:
Ironbarr,
A considerable number of us living in rural Northern Kalifornia would love to split from the South, Bay Area, and Sacramento. As it is we have no say in our affairs due to our sparse population.
[This message has been edited by RMc (edited September 22, 2000).][/quote]
I'm north of Sacramento by just a few miles. Our Assy'man and Senator come to our Friends of the NRA Dinners ! Sad thing is, the Assy'man wins the raffles !
Get the politicians out of Sacramento and it would be an Okay place.
I would like a split.
madison
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RMc:
Ironbarr,
A considerable number of us living in rural Northern Kalifornia would love to split from the South, Bay Area, and Sacramento. As it is we have no say in our affairs due to our sparse population.
[This message has been edited by RMc (edited September 22, 2000).][/quote]
Many people don't know the electoral college exists and how it works. For years I have tried to explain to people that they really don't elect the president and they act like I'm nuts. I wish people would get more serious about who they elect for congress since they are offices actually elected by the people. Strangely enough, I can find anyone who knows who's running for president (at least who two of the candidates are) and almost everyone knows who is running for senate in New York (one of the candidates anyway), but a suprisingly high number of people I ask don't know who is running for senate in their own state.
The electoral college could be a good thing. The popular vote in the last two presidential elections has proved there are a lot of idiots voting. But it's probably a bad thing since the electoral college has elected an idiot in the last two elections.
The electoral college could be a good thing. The popular vote in the last two presidential elections has proved there are a lot of idiots voting. But it's probably a bad thing since the electoral college has elected an idiot in the last two elections.
John Zogby was on the "O'Reilly Factor" last night talking about electoral votes. There are some states like Michigan and Wisconsin that are absolute tossups. Pennsylvania was not sewn up. As I looked at the map, it occured to me that the states in play are primarily midwestern hunting states. I think I'll do some extra time as range officer for sight-ins, and hand out literature to those guys who don't pay that much attention to RKBA.
Dick
Want to send a message to Bush? Sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html and forward the link to every gun owner you know.
Dick
Want to send a message to Bush? Sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html and forward the link to every gun owner you know.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAZ:
Has there ever been an instance where th epopular vote and electoral college vote were different? Sorry for the lame question, but I cant rememebr. Wonder what would happen inf the pop. vote went for Bush and the college went for Whore?[/quote]
There were two times in U.S. history when a canidate has become president because of the electoral vote when he didn't have the majority of the popular vote, 1876 and 1888.
When there is a "tie", the House of Representatives will choose from the top 3 candidates. This happended in 1800 and 1824 and aparently aggreed with the popular vote.
In the 1996 election, Klinton got 47,401,185 popular votes, Dole got 39,197,469, and Perot got 8,085,294. Klinton got 379 electoral votes and Dole got 159 (Klinton got more than twice as many electoral votes).
Has there ever been an instance where th epopular vote and electoral college vote were different? Sorry for the lame question, but I cant rememebr. Wonder what would happen inf the pop. vote went for Bush and the college went for Whore?[/quote]
There were two times in U.S. history when a canidate has become president because of the electoral vote when he didn't have the majority of the popular vote, 1876 and 1888.
When there is a "tie", the House of Representatives will choose from the top 3 candidates. This happended in 1800 and 1824 and aparently aggreed with the popular vote.
In the 1996 election, Klinton got 47,401,185 popular votes, Dole got 39,197,469, and Perot got 8,085,294. Klinton got 379 electoral votes and Dole got 159 (Klinton got more than twice as many electoral votes).
RMc and Madison46:
Has anyone you know mentioned or even discussed a possibity of a split? There'd probably be brouhaha with all kinds of scenarios and "no noes", but if it were decided on only population the north would probably win geography, no? The south? I don't know if the money's there or just the problems. But it would seem a way for the under-represented to even the playing field. And frankly, wouldn't it do the same for the country.
On the other hand ... power doesn't give it up easily.
........................................
Well, I'm in Virginia, so I don't count. There's a batch of Cal folks up here, though.
And I thank you for your responses.
Andy
Has anyone you know mentioned or even discussed a possibity of a split? There'd probably be brouhaha with all kinds of scenarios and "no noes", but if it were decided on only population the north would probably win geography, no? The south? I don't know if the money's there or just the problems. But it would seem a way for the under-represented to even the playing field. And frankly, wouldn't it do the same for the country.
On the other hand ... power doesn't give it up easily.
........................................
Well, I'm in Virginia, so I don't count. There's a batch of Cal folks up here, though.
And I thank you for your responses.
Andy
Hold on while I put on my asbestos underwear. Ok, that's better.
To my point. We do not live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic. The founding fathers were deeply suspicious of democracy. They instinctively understood the whims of popular opinion and that popular votes could just as easily deprive people of life, liberty and property just as easily as monarchies (dictatorships in today's language). The founding fathers wanted popular election of the chief executive, but did not want full blown democratic vote.
They created the electoral college as a check and balance against true popular vote. The net effect was to enhance the power of the state (its electoral college votes dependent upon the sum of house and senate representation) and limited the voting power of large population centers (not large by our standards at that time).
The electoral college ensures candidates will tend to more states than if it did not exist. Think for a moment, if we had a popular vote president, the top ten or states would dominate the election. Small states would be run over in a heart beat.
Every election voters want to know why the EC exists and why don't we get rid of it. Well, IMNSHO that would be a mistake. I think it was a mistake to move to popular vote for senators. The net effect was to reduce the status of states in the congress. If I were king, I revert to the original intent of state appointed senators and suspend the right of voting for anyone on public assistance.
I'll wait awhile before removing my asbestos underwear.
To my point. We do not live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic. The founding fathers were deeply suspicious of democracy. They instinctively understood the whims of popular opinion and that popular votes could just as easily deprive people of life, liberty and property just as easily as monarchies (dictatorships in today's language). The founding fathers wanted popular election of the chief executive, but did not want full blown democratic vote.
They created the electoral college as a check and balance against true popular vote. The net effect was to enhance the power of the state (its electoral college votes dependent upon the sum of house and senate representation) and limited the voting power of large population centers (not large by our standards at that time).
The electoral college ensures candidates will tend to more states than if it did not exist. Think for a moment, if we had a popular vote president, the top ten or states would dominate the election. Small states would be run over in a heart beat.
Every election voters want to know why the EC exists and why don't we get rid of it. Well, IMNSHO that would be a mistake. I think it was a mistake to move to popular vote for senators. The net effect was to reduce the status of states in the congress. If I were king, I revert to the original intent of state appointed senators and suspend the right of voting for anyone on public assistance.
I'll wait awhile before removing my asbestos underwear.
pittspilot
New member
Waitone is absolutely correct. Madison and company were worried about Tyranny of the Majority, a feature of democracy.
The highest ideal was always supposed to be the constitution, not the will of the people, although there was a provision to change the Constitution. However, it is very hard to change the Constitution, and there is the protection, or there is the supposed protection.
The highest ideal was always supposed to be the constitution, not the will of the people, although there was a provision to change the Constitution. However, it is very hard to change the Constitution, and there is the protection, or there is the supposed protection.
monkeyleg,
The NYT just had article how Gore has gone SILENT on the gun issue since the midwest is the battle ground. You can find it at nraila.org.
I'm in CA, I can't help too much. I hope the NRA is using all their money in MI, Penn, OH, FL and a few other places. If you are in or near those areas, give all the help you can.
madison
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Monkeyleg:
John Zogby was on the "O'Reilly Factor" last night talking about electoral votes. There are some states like Michigan and Wisconsin that are absolute tossups. Pennsylvania was not sewn up. As I looked at the map, it occured to me that the states in play are primarily midwestern hunting states. I think I'll do some extra time as range officer for sight-ins, and hand out literature to those guys who don't pay that much attention to RKBA.
Dick
Want to send a message to Bush? Sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html and forward the link to every gun owner you know.[/quote]
The NYT just had article how Gore has gone SILENT on the gun issue since the midwest is the battle ground. You can find it at nraila.org.
I'm in CA, I can't help too much. I hope the NRA is using all their money in MI, Penn, OH, FL and a few other places. If you are in or near those areas, give all the help you can.
madison
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Monkeyleg:
John Zogby was on the "O'Reilly Factor" last night talking about electoral votes. There are some states like Michigan and Wisconsin that are absolute tossups. Pennsylvania was not sewn up. As I looked at the map, it occured to me that the states in play are primarily midwestern hunting states. I think I'll do some extra time as range officer for sight-ins, and hand out literature to those guys who don't pay that much attention to RKBA.
Dick
Want to send a message to Bush? Sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html and forward the link to every gun owner you know.[/quote]
Democracy is 51% telling 49% top jump off a cliff. Or in the case of Missouri's concealed weapon issue last year, 52% telling 48%. Statisticly, half the population has less than average intelligence. It doesn't take a whole lot to get to 51% idiots, or even 50.0000001% which is still a "majority". Majorities are not always right and are often wrong. Some recent elections have proved that. Pure democracies are mob rule.