ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Fri Jun 05, 2020 9:35 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: The Electoral College
PostPosted: Sat Feb 28, 2004 12:43 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2003 7:12 pm
Posts: 731
Location: Central Coast, Colanirfia
Icy's post about the '04 elections here in America mentioned the Electoral College, and inspired this thread.

So, pros and cons of the College?
Well, it keeps candidates for just shooting for the top population spots in the country, that's good.
But it effectively gives a Midwest Farmer more of a vote than a New England teacher.

_________________
Quote:
"In real life, you don' have a Subterfuge skill above one." - Phill
"What?! You spent THREE YEARS believing that I didn't masturbate!" - Steven


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 28, 2004 2:51 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2003 1:30 pm
Posts: 4330
Location: Not a hellish, Onionian future...
It helps keep us from having a civil war whenever we are so close to a tie that it could go either way.

_________________
actor_au wrote:
Labrat's friends can't run away, as they are only the skins of the people he's drowned in his own semen, carefully stitched together and stuffed with cooking chocolate.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 28, 2004 3:13 pm 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 11:08 pm
Posts: 2115
Location: Lair of the Internet Anti-Hero
The bloated and massivly inefficent American voting system cracks me up.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 28, 2004 3:22 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 676
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Forevergrey wrote:
The bloated and massivly inefficent American voting system cracks me up.


Elaborate. And thusly prove that you CAN say something meaningful.

_________________
And thus, Grey wins. He's creating worthless drama in a totally unrelated thread even after he's been banned. - Emy

We're not mad. We're just argumentative. And we live in a state of fluctuating contempt for everything. - onion, when talking about herself and shoonra, actually describes the whole of kyhm forums.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 28, 2004 4:06 pm 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 11:08 pm
Posts: 2115
Location: Lair of the Internet Anti-Hero
I already did so, oh defender of panty sniffers.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 28, 2004 4:45 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 6:38 pm
Posts: 3148
Location: Gay bar at the end of the universe
The case against it.
The case for it.

Stolen shamelessly from here.

EDIT: Fixed the titles of the links, they were backwards >_<


Last edited by revolutio on Sat Feb 28, 2004 7:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 28, 2004 7:23 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
I have to agree with the solution the second mentions. The best way would be to truly even out the college. If Rhode Island was as important as New York, Texas, or California, then we could really see what the states need. This, however, would still leave open a large possibility that the candidate could win the popular vote and not the presidency.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 28, 2004 8:28 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2003 7:12 pm
Posts: 731
Location: Central Coast, Colanirfia
krylex wrote:
I have to agree with the solution the second mentions. The best way would be to truly even out the college. If Rhode Island was as important as New York, Texas, or California, then we could really see what the states need. This, however, would still leave open a large possibility that the candidate could win the popular vote and not the presidency.


Are you kidding? It would increase the chances of winning the popular but losing the election.

Here, think of it like this: You've got big state, and small state (in terms of population). Now, if the big state has a hundred voters, and the small state has ten, but both states have the same or nearly the same number of Electoral College votes (let's say, ten apiece), then the voters in the big state are disenfranchised. Their one hundred votes only influence ten EC votes, while the small state's ten voters influence a the same ten EC votes, effectively giving the each individual citizen in the large state a tenth, a tenth, of the say in the actual election. Let's say ninety of the the big state's voters go Republican and the other ten Demecrat, while just six of the small state's voters go Democrat and four (a very large minority) vote republican. In total, you'd have ninety six Republicnan votes, sixteen Democrat votes, and ten EC votes for each party. The Republican candidate, who has more than four times the Dem.'s support, would be be at a stalemate for an office that he really should be able to take.

I say get rid of the EC. The only real beneficeries are the people who live in the country of the more populous states, and that is achieved at the expense of the majority.

_________________
Quote:
"In real life, you don' have a Subterfuge skill above one." - Phill
"What?! You spent THREE YEARS believing that I didn't masturbate!" - Steven


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:27 am 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 139
A compromise: increase the granularity but don't do away with the electoral college. In my state, I am in the one predominantly democratic district - the other three are republican. Since the elctoral vote is determined party-wise for each state, this means that a good quarter of the population of my state is effectively disenfranchised. Instead, let's make it possible for each district to select an Elector individually, so that each district is at least represented.

Additionally, let's go with a voting system wherein haivng a 3rd-party candidate does not punish that political viewpoint (one could argue that Perot lost the '92 for Bush 1.0, and that Nader lost 2000 for Gore - this is not, I think, in accord witht he basic intent of elections). The system used in Canada seems workable, but I'm nto sure what other options exist.

And, finally, coudl someone explain to me how, in a country that does not "officially" have political parties as part fo its government, we have an Electoral College that is party-dependent?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group