"Peaceful" Protestors, Not So Peaceful

[Mephisto]

And it was all with the popular vote, not the electorial votes.  Quasi, I think I understand where you're coming from, but it doesn't particuarily matter.  You're concerned that because California and New York have such large populations that a large portion of votes would come from those two states hence "controlling" the vote.  However, they have a dominating number of electorial votes so it doesn't really matter IMO.

[Arta]

Why shouldn't states with more people have more of a say?

[Mephisto]

In the electorial college they do, because it's proportionate to population, so why does the electorial college even matter anymore especially considering every other vote is based on the popular and that the whole reason for the electorial college is because they didn't trust citizens to vote for the proper presidential candidate which seems to no longer be an issue today.

[CrAz3D]

I do feel that the electoral college is ALMOST a complete waste, we shoud do away with it & then enforce a competency exam!

[Arta]

In the electorial college they do, because it's proportionate to population

Not really. Smaller states have fewer votes obviously, but they have more votes per person than larger ones. That's the whole point. Seems rather undemocratic really.

[Hazard]

Why shouldn't states with more people have more of a say?

Because its not the system agreed upon by the Union. Small states must have some sort of equal representation, otherwise the larger states would dominate the smaller states. However, larger states must have a proportional representation  in legislature. This is how the House and the Senate came about. To satisfy small states, all are equal in the Senate. To satisfy large states, they have more seats in the House.

[Hazard]

dxo, what you said was that states that are more wealthy than other should be able to have a larger voice. Thats like saying that rich people should have a LEGAL basis for having more say so in politics than poor people.

Also, of course Democrats support a straight % election. Registered Democrats in this country outnumber registered Republicans by nearly 6%. The entire point of the electoral college is to prevent fiascos like the electoin of 1800 from happening again. It is also to give a portion of the electing power to the states, remember the New Jersey plan?

The only people who bitch about the electoral college are 2000 Gore supporters who lost fair and square, as had happend 4 times in the past, and still can't get over it.

[quasi-modo]

My understanding is that the electorial college applys only to the presidential election, so I don't understand why you'd say New York and California would control the nation...Every state has electorial votes proportionate to their population, so what's wrong with getting rid of the electorial college when the popular vote is just fine.  Your statement makes no sense (at least to my understanding).  There are republicans in those democratic states, and in California it's practically 50/50.

Because without it politicians would drop their drawers to the two big states because they would have the most voters there. This way the politicians cannot just promise to give la, new york, san fran, san diego, new stadiums and get elected.

[quasi-modo]

Why shouldn't states with more people have more of a say?

Because the large states could really screw all of the other states.

[dxoigmn]

Why shouldn't states with more people have more of a say?

Because the large states could really screw all of the other states.

So ironic that you argue for capitalism where the large businesses really screw all of the smaller businesses.

dxo, what you said was that states that are more wealthy than other should be able to have a larger voice. Thats like saying that rich people should have a LEGAL basis for having more say so in politics than poor people.

If I had a penny everytime someone pulled a "that's like saying" then I'd be a rich man by now. 

[Hazard]

And by your own argument your vote would be worth more than a poorer persons because you contribute more money into the economy.

[quasi-modo]

Why shouldn't states with more people have more of a say?

Because the large states could really screw all of the other states.

So ironic that you argue for capitalism where the large businesses really screw all of the smaller businesses.

States != Companies. There is really no similarity.

[MyndFyre]

In the electorial college they do, because it's proportionate to population

Not really. Smaller states have fewer votes obviously, but they have more votes per person than larger ones. That's the whole point. Seems rather undemocratic really.

The difference is somewhat trivial, though.  I don't recall what the actual number is, but the number of Representatives per state is determined by population; considering that constitutes 436 of the 538 electoral college seats (81%), I would say that the inclusion of the Senate seats gives the smaller states SOME kind of representation.  (The numbers are based on 435 Representatives, 100 Senators, and 1 Representative/2 Senate - equivalent votes from DC).

Liberal theory supports preventing "tyranny of the majority."

[Stealth]

Another important thing to note is that, had the 2000 election occurred under a nationwide-popular-vote system, a Florida-like situation could be duplicated across the entire country instead of just in a specific state or community, which would be quite a mess.

[Forged]

I could only imagine the margin of error in a staight popular election would be quite high.