"Peaceful" Protestors, Not So Peaceful

[Mephisto]

That could be eliminated with new voting systems.  From what I heard the electronic voting machines were quite accurate and effective.  Keep in mind that I'm arguing from perspective like Arta stressed we all do, and as such I'm not necessarily fighting to get the electorial college removed, just arguing for reasons why it's not necessary anymore; but I'll admit it does serve its cause, but perhaps its cause is out-dated in this world as its reason doesn't really apply anymore.

[Hazard]

Part of the point of an electoral college is to mantain fairness in the system, rather than having a situation where one group becomes overly dominant and can rule with an iron fist.

[CrAz3D]

That could be eliminated with new voting systems.  From what I heard the electronic voting machines were quite accurate and effective.  Keep in mind that I'm arguing from perspective like Arta stressed we all do, and as such I'm not necessarily fighting to get the electorial college removed, just arguing for reasons why it's not necessary anymore; but I'll admit it does serve its cause, but perhaps its cause is out-dated in this world as its reason doesn't really apply anymore.

Of course it still applies, created to keep stupid zombies choosing the next president & there still exsist a bunch of stupid zombies.

[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.

States != Companies. There is really no similarity.

Yeah I know companies are more horrible and only do what's best for their shareholders; unlike states who try and do what the majority of their constituents want and also uphold the full faith and credit clause with other states.  So it's not so bad that a larger state screws over a smaller state as compared to a larger business screwing over a smaller business.

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."

Generally any state with more than 11 electoral votes will be underrepresented in comparison to population. 
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G04/ElectorAllocation.phtml?sort=Popu

I still don't understand what is wrong with a direct vote (for the president).  No one has presented an clear arguements against it.  Some have presented arguments (see quasi-modo's wonderfully insightful post about the legislature) that make no sense since no one is advocating abolishing congress rather just the electoral college.  Instead, people have beat around the Bush and blamed democrats for wanting to get rid of the electoral college (which has nothing to do with the argument).  So, it makes me wonder why people (particularly the republicans on this board) are so apprehensive to abolishing the electoral college when their own candidate won the majority vote?  Just doesn't make sense and perhaps has to do something with Bush being elected despite losing the popular vote in 2000 and the slight fear that he may not be reelected had popular vote been enacted (which should be quelled by now since he won).

[Hazard]

Its an electoral system with roots deeply embedded in tradition for one thing.

Second, it is a tried and true manner of represting popular vote vs. state's rights to have a say in government.

Third, and perhaps most importantly it prevents voting fiascos. If you are to go to a direct system, you create an opening for a third major party to rise to power, creating a possible situation where the winner of an election could recieve say, only 42% of the popular vote. Is this just? There are more arguments against a popular vote than for it, try reading dxo.

[dxoigmn]

Its an electoral system with roots deeply embedded in tradition for one thing.

Slaves.  And yes, I am comparing slavery to the electoral college because slavery was a huge factor in the creation of the electoral college.

Second, it is a tried and true manner of represting popular vote vs. state's rights to have a say in government.

State's will always have a say in the government.  But electing who runs this country is not the job of the state, rather the people.  That is what we like to call democracy.  In any case, the presidential election has nothing to do with state's rights.  Or maybe you're arguing that California and New York are going to gang up on Colorado in some mass conspiracy to take away Colorado's vote.  Oh no!

Third, and perhaps most importantly it prevents voting fiascos. If you are to go to a direct system, you create an opening for a third major party to rise to power, creating a possible situation where the winner of an election could recieve say, only 42% of the popular vote. Is this just? There are more arguments against a popular vote than for it, try reading dxo.

While we're on the subject of theoretical situations, why don't I toss out a few "creating a possible situations."  With the current electoral college, it is possible that the electors will vote against the will of the people.  Oh and what happens if there is a tie?  Why then the states (note that they only get 1 vote each thereby letting say Montana have as much power as California) get to choose the president, not the people.

I've bet you've heard this argument against a direct election: "The candidates will only visit the most populated states."  My response:  Yeah, like the electoral college stops them from only visiting swing states.  Here's another popular one (already mentioned in this thread): "A direct vote recount will be super bad."  My response:  Someone should calculate this but I am willing to bet that the margin between the candidates of the popular vote is larger than say the vote in florida in 2000.  But in any case, we're so concerned with recount when the whole point of recounting is to get a more accurate picture.  I fail to see what is wrong with that.

[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.

Yeah I know companies are more horrible and only do what's best for their shareholders; unlike states who try and do what the majority of their constituents want and also uphold the full faith and credit clause with other states.  So it's not so bad that a larger state screws over a smaller state as compared to a larger business screwing over a smaller business.

That is some of the most retarded stuff I have ever heard. There is an enormous difference between one group of people taking all of the funds and leaving the people in the other states poor and uneducated and a company buying out another and maybe some of the other companies employees getting layed off or something.

[Hazard]

Slaves.  And yes, I am comparing slavery to the electoral college because slavery was a huge factor in the creation of the electoral college.

Go back to school. The point of the electoral college was to prevent uneducated people from having too much voting power, this was well before there was equal sufferage in the first place. Get your facts straight before you make an ass of yourself.

State's will always have a say in the government.  But electing who runs this country is not the job of the state, rather the people.  That is what we like to call democracy.  In any case, the presidential election has nothing to do with state's rights.  Or maybe you're arguing that California and New York are going to gang up on Colorado in some mass conspiracy to take away Colorado's vote.  Oh no!

It was a neccessary provision to pacify the concerns of all the states. You do remember why the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written right? I don't think you do.

While we're on the subject of theoretical situations, why don't I toss out a few "creating a possible situations."  With the current electoral college, it is possible that the electors will vote against the will of the people.  Oh and what happens if there is a tie?  Why then the states (note that they only get 1 vote each thereby letting say Montana have as much power as California) get to choose the president, not the people.

Very unlikely. You don't even know how the system works. The popular election in each state elects a delegation that actually casts their ballots for the President. The party that wins the popular vote sends their delegation to cast their ballots. Of course, the parties choose fiercely loyal party members to cast their ballots, so the odds of having a "spy" or a "dissenter" are next to nil. You'll also notice, that Montana and California do not have equal electoral votes. Another example of how you are incompetant.

[CrAz3D]

State's will always have a say in the government.  But electing who runs this country is not the job of the state, rather the people.  That is what we like to call democracy.  In any case, the presidential election has nothing to do with state's rights.  Or maybe you're arguing that California and New York are going to gang up on Colorado in some mass conspiracy to take away Colorado's vote.  Oh no!

ACTUALLY...we're a republic.  We have representation otherwise it would take FOREVER to get ANY bill/law passed because EVERYONE would have to vote.  A true democracy is very impractical.

[dxoigmn]

Slaves.  And yes, I am comparing slavery to the electoral college because slavery was a huge factor in the creation of the electoral college.

Go back to school. The point of the electoral college was to prevent uneducated people from having too much voting power, this was well before there was equal sufferage in the first place. Get your facts straight before you make an ass of yourself.

Haha don't even start questioning my credentials.  Yes the point of the electoral college was to prevent uneducated people form have too much voting power.  However, there is more to it than just that.  The states in the south were scared because they knew slaves wouldn't be able to vote and hence would have less power if there was a direct vote.  So, they lobbied for an electoral college like system and they got it.  The electoral college was a hack put together in an attempt to satisfy everyone.  History is quite interesting once you look beyond what you learned in high school, eh?

State's will always have a say in the government.  But electing who runs this country is not the job of the state, rather the people.  That is what we like to call democracy.  In any case, the presidential election has nothing to do with state's rights.  Or maybe you're arguing that California and New York are going to gang up on Colorado in some mass conspiracy to take away Colorado's vote.  Oh no!

It was a neccessary provision to pacify the concerns of all the states. You do remember why the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written right? I don't think you do.

Necessary provision?  Maybe then, not today.  Note that the great compromise, was a compromise.  The bill of rights has nothing to do with the electoral college.  States will always have power, abolishing the electoral is not going to take anything away from the rights of the state.

While we're on the subject of theoretical situations, why don't I toss out a few "creating a possible situations."  With the current electoral college, it is possible that the electors will vote against the will of the people.  Oh and what happens if there is a tie?  Why then the states (note that they only get 1 vote each thereby letting say Montana have as much power as California) get to choose the president, not the people.

Very unlikely. You don't even know how the system works. The popular election in each state elects a delegation that actually casts their ballots for the President. The party that wins the popular vote sends their delegation to cast their ballots. Of course, the parties choose fiercely loyal party members to cast their ballots, so the odds of having a "spy" or a "dissenter" are next to nil. You'll also notice, that Montana and California do not have equal electoral votes. Another example of how you are incompetant.

You don't know how to the system works.  Faithless electors are common and you as a self-proclaimed expert should know this (http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/faithless.htm).  Montana and California do have equal votes if the election goes to the house of representatives because of a tie in the electoral college, as I said.  Who's incompetant?

Edit: I also recall a West Virgian elector saying he wouldn't vote for Bush.  Although, he did end up voting for him but he threatened not to!

[Forged]

If you are to go to a direct system, you create an opening for a third major party to rise to power

I fail to see how that could be in any way shape or form a bad thing.

Go back to school.

Heed your own advice, slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person.  Gaining southern states a larger representation in both congress and the ec

[CrAz3D]

dxo, the Bill of Rights was a compromise too.

[Arta]

If you are to go to a direct system, you create an opening for a third major party to rise to power

I fail to see how that could be in any way shape or form a bad thing.

I totally agree. We have a viable third party on the rise here, which I think is fantastic, because the two major parties are just as useless as the republicans and democrats.

[Hazard]

Haha don't even start questioning my credentials.

I do question them.

You don't know how to the system works.

I've studied it at length. It looks like you just believe what your parents and peers have told you about it.

Faithless electors are common and you as a self-proclaimed expert should know this (http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/faithless.htm).

You present a blatantly biased website as evidence? Wow.

Montana and California do have equal votes if the election goes to the house of representatives because of a tie in the electoral college, as I said.  Who's incompetant?

If there is no victor in the electoral college the vote will be determined by the house. In this case, you ignorant bastard, California, having more representatives, has more votes. Christ try reading.

Edit: I also recall a West Virgian elector saying he wouldn't vote for Bush.  Although, he did end up voting for him but he threatened not to!

I'm going to kill you! I really won't, but I'm threatening to!

[dxoigmn]

Haha don't even start questioning my credentials.

I do question them.

Well since you want to go that route.  I go to Dartmouth College, you?

You don't know how to the system works.

I've studied it at length. It looks like you just believe what your parents and peers have told you about it.

No, mostly I've just read the Constitution and it's several amendments.

Faithless electors are common and you as a self-proclaimed expert should know this (http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/faithless.htm).

You present a blatantly biased website as evidence? Wow.

How can a website be biased when it is presenting fact?  You think it made up faithless voters for some liberal agenda?  Haha, oh my.

Here's another site so you can say it's biased too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College#Faithless_electors

Montana and California do have equal votes if the election goes to the house of representatives because of a tie in the electoral college, as I said.  Who's incompetant?

If there is no victor in the electoral college the vote will be determined by the house. In this case, you ignorant bastard, California, having more representatives, has more votes. Christ try reading.

You try reading.  According to the 12th amendment it specifically states:

and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote

You can check this for yourself on any website of your choosing as I am reluctant to post a website because you'll probably argue that it's biased.

Edit: I also recall a West Virgian elector saying he wouldn't vote for Bush.  Although, he did end up voting for him but he threatened not to!

I'm going to kill you! I really won't, but I'm threatening to!

That's illegal.  Thought you were a law abiding citizen?  Guess not.