A serious question

[Guest]

Who continues to believe that he electoral college is the sensible way to elect a president? I used to live in Kansas - If my presidential vote there was for a democrat, it was a futile and wasted vote. I also lived in Minnesota where, if my vote was for a republican presidential candidate, it was wasted. How many people in California and New York, who would otherwise vote for the republican presidential candidate, simply don't vote because they realize their vote would be of no consequence in the national election? How many people in Mississippi or Alabama who would vote for a democrat for president, choose not to vote because it is futile? The unsightly Florida recount and subsequent supreme court decision in 2000 would have been unnecessary (which would make republicans unhappy, but it was a potential crisis for the country) if the popular vote elected the president - or would it - If Western Time Zone states had not already been made aware of the trends, maybe many many more would have voted, especially if the outcome was not based on the winner take all electoral process, with the chance that Bush may have won the popular vote.

The electoral college is, in my opinion, a concept that has become an anachronism which no longer makes sense in the computer age. We are no longer 50 individual states (how many of you are living in the state in which you were born and raised?), we are one nation that is connected by unprecedented electronic access. We should vote as one nation for arguably the most important position in the country.

[Guest]

Who continues to believe that he electoral college is the sensible way to elect a president? I used to live in Kansas - If my presidential vote there was for a democrat, it was a futile and wasted vote. I also lived in Minnesota where, if my vote was for a republican presidential candidate, it was wasted. How many people in California and New York, who would otherwise vote for the republican presidential candidate, simply don't vote because they realize their vote would be of no consequence in the national election? How many people in Mississippi or Alabama who would vote for a democrat for president, choose not to vote because it is futile? The unsightly Florida recount and subsequent supreme court decision in 2000 would have been unnecessary (which would make republicans unhappy, but it was a potential crisis for the country) if the popular vote elected the president - or would it - If Western Time Zone states had not already been made aware of the trends, maybe many many more would have voted, especially if the outcome was not based on the winner take all electoral process, with the chance that Bush may have won the popular vote.

The electoral college is, in my opinion, a concept that has become an anachronism which no longer makes sense in the computer age. We are no longer 50 individual states (how many of you are living in the state in which you were born and raised?), we are one nation that is connected by unprecedented electronic access. We should vote as one nation for arguably the most important position in the country.

One big system though is quite a target for computer hackers, corruption from big business, and other ills when you put too many eggs in just one huge basket.

The States' different interests put in some checks and balances which are needed especially when you consider how much power the two main parties have.

I have moved around quite a bit too though. Born in Milwaukee, WI. Then to Reno, Nevada via Apache Junction, AZ. Then to Provo, UT. Then back to Reno. On to Denver, CO. Back near Apache Junction, AZ. Next to Belmont, CA; then to the Santa Rosa area of CA. Now to Minneapoils, MN. Back to the Santa Rosa area of CA. Then to Palm Harbor, FL. Then to the Villages. Back to Palm Harbor a few times. Then here in the Villages.

There were very different interests in the Western States-- especially access to water in the arid areas. Quite different from problems in the Midwest.

[Guest]

One big system though is quite a target for computer hackers, corruption from big business, and other ills when you put too many eggs in just one huge basket.

The States' different interests put in some checks and balances which are needed especially when you consider how much power the two main parties have.

I have moved around quite a bit too though. Born in Milwaukee, WI. Then to Reno, Nevada via Apache Junction, AZ. Then to Provo, UT. Then back to Reno. On to Denver, CO. Back near Apache Junction, AZ. Next to Belmont, CA; then to the Santa Rosa area of CA. Now to Minneapoils, MN. Back to the Santa Rosa area of CA. Then to Palm Harbor, FL. Then to the Villages. Back to Palm Harbor a few times. Then here in the Villages.

There were very different interests in the Western States-- especially access to water in the arid areas. Quite different from problems in the Midwest.

Can't disagree with much of that, but how does that justify the electoral college. The concept of "one man, one vote" does not apply in only one election, president and vp. While the interests in various states are indeed, different, aren't those difference primarily dealt with on a local and state level, where one man, one vote does apply? The president is not the president of the red states or the blue states, he/she is president of the entire country. I think that whatever circumstances made the electoral college good process for the country, have long since drifted into oblivion. As far as computer hacking or voter fraud, etc. it seems to me that it would be easier to manipulate a state or three than to manipulate the vote over the entire country.

[Guest]

Can't disagree with much of that, but how does that justify the electoral college. The concept of "one man, one vote" does not apply in only one election, president and vp. While the interests in various states are indeed, different, aren't those difference primarily dealt with on a local and state level, where one man, one vote does apply? The president is not the president of the red states or the blue states, he/she is president of the entire country. I think that whatever circumstances made the electoral college good process for the country, have long since drifted into oblivion. As far as computer hacking or voter fraud, etc. it seems to me that it would be easier to manipulate a state or three than to manipulate the vote over the entire country.

Electoral College -- An Obsolete Concept? - SFGate (http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/editorials/article/Electoral-College-An-Obsolete-Concept-2694598.php#page-2)

What could we do to make sure that States like Texas, Florida, New York and California do not take over the elections with respect to any interests shown by Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates?

[Guest]

Let's take a few steps back. Frankly I feel the problems begin with the primaries. First, i do not believe that anyone should be able to register and vote on the same day. That is how Jesse Ventura was able to corner the governor voteers (ie from young kids). Secondly I don't believe that the candidate not getting a majority in a state ought to lose the counties he/she was able to carry. Thirdly I do not believe in open primaries. Fourth I would demand that each voter present a photo ID card before they are allowed to vote

Continuing on the electoral college was suppose to provide parity between the larger populated states viv a vis smaller populated states. Secondly the electoral college is suppose to be party members elected to represented its state.

My preference would be tighter control at the state level to ensure candidates really are the voters choice.

The next step would be a vetting process of the so called state represented voting as the electoral college,

If these issues could be resolved then I might have more confidence and throw my support behind the electoral college.

[Guest]

Electoral College -- An Obsolete Concept? - SFGate (http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/editorials/article/Electoral-College-An-Obsolete-Concept-2694598.php#page-2)

What could we do to make sure that States like Texas, Florida, New York and California do not take over the elections with respect to any interests shown by Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates?

I don't understand why the large states would take over an election any more than they currently do. The way the electoral college works, theoretically one voter in Cal. can break the tie and award 55 votes to a candidate, while the N.D. deciding voter can deliver 3. With a popular vote decision, the N.D. voter weilds equal power to the Cal. voter. Again, the elephant in the room for me is how many democrats in red states don't bother to vote and vice versa, knowing their vote, at least in the presidential race, wil count for nothing.

[Guest]

Ok let me appraoch this another way. Let's take this thing in reverse. Suppose a president was elected by popular vote. What flaws do you find in this process?

The most obvious is that most voters don't read much beyond the bumper stickers. Secondly, a problem lies in the word itself "popular". Perhaps a candidate is very popular but is he/she really the best candidate. Jesse Ventura was popular. Voter fraud is an issue now and with just a "popular vote" would invite some real incentives and innovation in how to create more votes...if you get my drift.

SoI refer back to my previous post and prefer to shore up the primaries at the state level to provide parity, prevent manipulation and deter fraud.

[Guest]

Ok let me appraoch this another way. Let's take this thing in reverse. Suppose a president was elected by popular vote. What flaws do you find in this process?

The most obvious is that most voters don't read much beyond the bumper stickers. Secondly, a problem lies in the word itself "popular". Perhaps a candidate is very popular but is he/she really the best candidate. Jesse Ventura was popular. Voter fraud is an issue now and with just a "popular vote" would invite some real incentives and innovation in how to create more votes...if you get my drift.

SoI refer back to my previous post and prefer to shore up the primaries at the state level to provide parity, prevent manipulation and deter fraud.

We are in agreement that primaries need to be reformed. However, I don't see the corelation between "popular" or voter fraud, and the electoral college. The popularity argument is just as relevant in the current electoral process as it would be in a popular vote election. Second, manipulating people or perpetrating fraud would, in my eye, be at least as useful in the electoral process as in a popular election. You have not convinced me how there would be any advantage to the perpetrators that is not available in the current system. We may have to agree to disagree.

[Guest]

The genius of the Electoral College's side effects are felt to this day. A candidate still has to win races in states all over the country in order to win the election.

Yeah, it may have been designed for horse-and-buggy-era communications - but you don't have news stories about the United States trying to form a "coalition government" where a party with 29% of the seats is controlling the show.