Bush? Kerry? Nader!!

[aakfish]

I do feel sorry for you guys though. You have the choice of voting between a Munster and a monkey. Not that great is it?

[The Angry Artist]

Cloud said:

People just can't get over the fact that Gore lost..

Let us not forget the fact if the elections were based solely on the popular vote, Bush would not be in office (or, more accurately, on vacation) today.

[Lilly ~ Queen of the Grarrls]

Well of course I'll add my two cents worth here.

I am a Democrat who turned Republican this election because the thought of even being party associated with that ass (Kerry) is not something I want to be known for.
What scares me is the Democratic party felt that Kerry was the best they could do? As was stated in a great speech, Kerry has to google himself just to find out where he stands on anything.

This election, I have no doubts about voting Bush in.

And maybe in 4 years, Democrats can search a little harder for a candiate that is worthy of the presidency.

Just my opinion of course.

[Stal]

The said:

Let us not forget the fact if the elections were based solely on the popular vote, Bush would not be in office (or, more accurately, on vacation) today.

Hmmm...and the only time the electoral college is a big bad machine is when YOUR guy loses. If the electoral college needed to be gotten rid of, than why didn't your party push for it during the 8 years Clinton was in office?

Don't throw the electoral college whining around. It does no good other than make you/your party look like a sore loser/sore losers.

Besides, as I said, there was a lot of cheating on the popular votes for the Democrats. How sure can you be that Gore _truly_ won it?

[The Angry Artist]

Cloud said:

Hmmm...and the only time the electoral college is a big bad machine is when YOUR guy loses. If the electoral college needed to be gotten rid of, than why didn't your party push for it during the 8 years Clinton was in office?

I don't know what the Democrats think about the EC, but there really is no case for it in the first place. It's outdated completely. It was founded because during hte first years of the gool ole' U.S. of A frankly many Americans were illiterate and not smart enough to vote. Now? It's unnecessary. That is an non-biased view -- there should be no Electoral College for any future elections (past 2004 of course - you'd probably say I want to get rid of the EC because otherwise Kerry would lose ).

Also, this was the first election I paid any attention to. Before that I didn't care. Maybe because in '96 I was almost seven at the time? Nah...

Cloud said:

Don't throw the electoral college whining around. It does no good other than make you/your party look like a sore loser/sore losers.

And now I'm sure you want to keep the EC because it helped Bush win.

Cloud said:

Besides, as I said, there was a lot of cheating on the popular votes for the Democrats. How sure can you be that Gore _truly_ won it?

How can you be sure anybody ever truly ever voted on anything? Do you think that before the 2000 elections there was no cheating at all? How can we be sure Clinton won? Or Bush Senior? Or Reagan? Come to think of it, how do we know Adams or Jefferson won? It is very probably true that parties have cheated before.

[sollunaestrella]

The said:

I don't know what the Democrats think about the EC, but there really is no case for it in the first place. It's outdated completely. It was founded because during hte first years of the gool ole' U.S. of A frankly many Americans were illiterate and not smart enough to vote. Now? It's unnecessary.

I understand that reasoning, but at the same time there are still some benefits. One? Giving smaller states a voice.

If there were not an electoral college, who would care what I thought? I live in Maine - a small state with only two real electoral votes (although it is one of the two states that operate a little differently - two votes go to the state winners, one vote to the winner of one congressional district, and one vote to the winner of the other district - I'm not precisely sure why that is, but I'm pretty sure it's because our population is that much smaller than everyone else's except Nebraska). Anyway, yeah - I live in a small state. If the president is elected solely through popular vote, Maine is so small that no one cares. Everybody in Maine could vote for, say, Bush, and if everyone else votes Kerry, it won't matter in the least bit.

Our voice wouldn't count. If our country decided to drop its waste in the oceans, our Maine fisherman would have no say against it. And countless other things could be done to us without our voice being heard.

With the electoral college, our voice really does count. Of course it doesn't count as much as New York's does, but it counts all the same, a heck of a lot more than it would otherwise. If an entire candidate wins our vote - if we as a state approve one candidate - then it matters that we approved him.

If elections relied on popular vote, no one would care about us at all - could do anything to us and to heck with the consequences to us. (No one cares, after all - it won't even affect the next election because we won't matter then, either).

Yeah, candidates will still head for the bigger states. But we aren't overlooked.

Again, I can see exactly where you're coming from. But the view that the electoral college should be dumped isn't an unbiased fact as you say it is. There is another side. Like everything, it has pros and cons.

[The Angry Artist]

SLE said:

I understand that reasoning, but at the same time there are still some benefits. One? Giving smaller states a voice.

If there were not an electoral college, who would care what I thought? I live in Maine - a small state with only two real electoral votes (although it is one of the two states that operate a little differently - two votes go to the state winners, one vote to the winner of one congressional district, and one vote to the winner of the other district - I'm not precisely sure why that is, but I'm pretty sure it's because our population is that much smaller than everyone else's except Nebraska). Anyway, yeah - I live in a small state. If the president is elected solely through popular vote, Maine is so small that no one cares. Everybody in Maine could vote for, say, Bush, and if everyone else votes Kerry, it won't matter in the least bit.

Our voice wouldn't count. If our country decided to drop its waste in the oceans, our Maine fisherman would have no say against it. And countless other things could be done to us without our voice being heard.

With the electoral college, our voice really does count. Of course it doesn't count as much as New York's does, but it counts all the same, a heck of a lot more than it would otherwise. If an entire candidate wins our vote - if we as a state approve one candidate - then it matters that we approved him.

If elections relied on popular vote, no one would care about us at all - could do anything to us and to heck with the consequences to us. (No one cares, after all - it won't even affect the next election because we won't matter then, either).

Yeah, candidates will still head for the bigger states. But we aren't overlooked.

Again, I can see exactly where you're coming from. But the view that the electoral college should be dumped isn't an unbiased fact as you say it is. There is another side. Like everything, it has pros and cons.

That argument doesn't make very much sense. What matters is whether or not you vote. I'm trying to look at this in an unbiased fashion. Everyone should just vote fo the candidate they want, and that's it. If your vote "didn't matter," it's because more people wanted to other candidate. Without the EC, everyone's vote would matter. There would be no middleman to toss away the votes of one party's supporters in a state and vote for just one candidate.

[sollunaestrella]

The said:

That argument doesn't make very much sense. What matters is whether or not you vote. I'm trying to look at this in an unbiased fashion. Everyone should just vote fo the candidate they want, and that's it. If your vote "didn't matter," it's because more people wanted to other candidate. Without the EC, everyone's vote would matter. There would be no middleman to toss away the votes of one party's supporters in a state and vote for just one candidate.

Let's be hypothetical and take the fishermen and lobstermen again.

Most people in this country are not fishermen. They have no reason to think about the fishermen. In fact, most people seem blissfully unaware that these people are out early every morning, catching their sea-fresh fish and famous Maine lobster.

Now, a candidate comes along and says, "Look at all that nice salty sea water! What purpose is it really serving in the scheme of things? I mean, heck, we can't drink it! Let's dump some stuff into it!"

There would be people who would oppose that, of course - environmentalists and, of course, the fishermen and lobstermen. But there aren't enough of them in the entire population to count. This candidate wins, the fish and lobster die, and the jobs of these people vanish in a puff of pollution. And all you poor people aren't getting any more lobster any time soon. Aww.

What happens with the electoral college is that weight is distributed more equally upon all kinds of people. A large amount of fishermen live in Maine. If the environment-friendly candidate wins in Maine without the electoral college, no one cares what happens to us. Why should they? People can survive without lobster.

You might argue that people should just smarten up and think about the consequences of things - and I would agree. Ideally, presidents and normal citizens alike would care about everyone and everything and would be careful about what they do, say, and think. But, of course, that's not the way the country - or indeed the world - works. People are not only mostly ego-centric by nature but they are also ignorant of what goes on in other states. I know I am. So if there's an electoral college, it evens out things. Smaller groups get a larger say. It evens out the importance of everybody.

Yes, everyone's vote might matter individually, but as a group (if I'm in a minority group such as a fisherman), my vote will not count. And a president will have no reason to do anything for me. Maine as a state doesn't matter - he'll win whether I vote for him or not. So why should be try to help me and protect me and my job? Well, yes, because he's going to be a president - but you know very well that's not a good enough reason for most presidents. If my vote's not going to help him or hurt him, he's not caring about me. He's going to try and appeal to the majority - which makes sense, yes, but the majority isn't always right. The minority matters too. In one nation, every person should matter.

Why do we have the Senate as part of our government? So everyone will have an equal say in what goes on with our law-making. If you oppose the electoral college so strongly, believing that only the majority of people should make decisions, why not throw the Senate out the window? After all, it's not fair! The House of Representatives is the only House that truly represents the people!

Do you at least see what I mean?

[The Angry Artist]

SLE said:

Let's be hypothetical and take the fishermen and lobstermen again.

Most people in this country are not fishermen. They have no reason to think about the fishermen. In fact, most people seem blissfully unaware that these people are out early every morning, catching their sea-fresh fish and famous Maine lobster.

Now, a candidate comes along and says, "Look at all that nice salty sea water! What purpose is it really serving in the scheme of things? I mean, heck, we can't drink it! Let's dump some stuff into it!"

There would be people who would oppose that, of course - environmentalists and, of course, the fishermen and lobstermen. But there aren't enough of them in the entire population to count. This candidate wins, the fish and lobster die, and the jobs of these people vanish in a puff of pollution. And all you poor people aren't getting any more lobster any time soon. Aww.

What happens with the electoral college is that weight is distributed more equally upon all kinds of people. A large amount of fishermen live in Maine. If the environment-friendly candidate wins in Maine without the electoral college, no one cares what happens to us. Why should they? People can survive without lobster.

You might argue that people should just smarten up and think about the consequences of things - and I would agree. Ideally, presidents and normal citizens alike would care about everyone and everything and would be careful about what they do, say, and think. But, of course, that's not the way the country - or indeed the world - works. People are not only mostly ego-centric by nature but they are also ignorant of what goes on in other states. I know I am. So if there's an electoral college, it evens out things. Smaller groups get a larger say. It evens out the importance of everybody.

Yes, everyone's vote might matter individually, but as a group (if I'm in a minority group such as a fisherman), my vote will not count. And a president will have no reason to do anything for me. Maine as a state doesn't matter - he'll win whether I vote for him or not. So why should be try to help me and protect me and my job? Well, yes, because he's going to be a president - but you know very well that's not a good enough reason for most presidents. If my vote's not going to help him or hurt him, he's not caring about me. He's going to try and appeal to the majority - which makes sense, yes, but the majority isn't always right. The minority matters too. In one nation, every person should matter.

Why do we have the Senate as part of our government? So everyone will have an equal say in what goes on with our law-making. If you oppose the electoral college so strongly, believing that only the majority of people should make decisions, why not throw the Senate out the window? After all, it's not fair! The House of Representatives is the only House that truly represents the people!

Do you at least see what I mean?

Yes, I finally see what you mean. At first I couldn't make the connection between the plight of the fisherman and who votes for whom. I only got the point after you brought up the House of Representatives. After which I saw your point.

It's a mistaken point, nonetheless.

The Electoral College isn't made up of Congressmen. There are as many EC delegates as Senators and House Representatives combined (525), but the EC delegates for each state are nominated by I believe the office of the governor.

[sollunaestrella]

The said:

Yes, I finally see what you mean. At first I couldn't make the connection between the plight of the fisherman and who votes for whom. I only got the point after you brought up the House of Representatives. After which I saw your point.

I'm sorry for being a bit unclear - I'm a bit tired.

The said:

It's a mistaken point, nonetheless.

The Electoral College isn't made up of Congressmen. There are as many EC delegates as Senators and House Representatives combined (525), but the EC delegates for each state are nominated by I believe the office of the governor.

Well, I know that - and I know that the EC and the Senate are very different things in both goals and set-up. But the Senate and the House together basically accomplish what the EC wants to accomplish - to give some more weight to the opinions of people who otherwise might not really matter - whereas the popular vote alone - at least the way I'm seeing it - would basically be like the House of Represenatives all by itself, with all the weight on bigger states (and therefore the mere majority of the people) and the smaller ones (the minority) not really counting or having any say at all.

Looking back over my post, I know I was really unclear. The plight of the fishermen example makes sense in my head, but I didn't explain it very well - but I hope you get the gist of what I'm trying to say. I really should keep away from this board when I'm so tired....

[The Angry Artist]

SLE said:

I'm sorry for being a bit unclear - I'm a bit tired.



Well, I know that - and I know that the EC and the Senate are very different things in both goals and set-up. But the Senate and the House together basically accomplish what the EC wants to accomplish - to give some more weight to the opinions of people who otherwise might not really matter - whereas the popular vote alone - at least the way I'm seeing it - would basically be like the House of Represenatives all by itself, with all the weight on bigger states (and therefore the mere majority of the people) and the smaller ones (the minority) not really counting or having any say at all.

Looking back over my post, I know I was really unclear. The plight of the fishermen example makes sense in my head, but I didn't explain it very well - but I hope you get the gist of what I'm trying to say. I really should keep away from this board when I'm so tired....

You keep mentioning the states. I'm thinking about the people themselves and not the states they live in. For the elections, it shouldn't matter what state you live in as long as you vote. The candidates would still come to the smaller states not to get the states' electoral votes but to get more people to vote for them (the undecided voters).

[sollunaestrella]

The said:

You keep mentioning the states. I'm thinking about the people themselves and not the states they live in. For the elections, it shouldn't matter what state you live in as long as you vote. The candidates would still come to the smaller states not to get the states' electoral votes but to get more people to vote for them (the undecided voters).

But states do count. Different states have different industries, problems, concerns, strengths, and needs that people in other states don't know. If you asked me what was going on in, say, Wyoming right now, I wouldn't have a clue. Do you know what's going on in Wyoming right now? You can cast an individual vote based on what matters to you, but you don't know what matters to people in other states and could be making a very, very wrong decision on their part (the plight of the fishermen!), and you wouldn't know it. If you're in the majority, the minority goes kaput.

Groups of people matter. As I said, if you're part of a group with a special concern that's a minority in the country but a majority in a state, then the electoral college is a huge benefit to you.

Obviously, not all groups are within state boundaries or are within boundaries at all. But states are groups in themselves - individual groups that are unique and need something different from its people and its federal government. And what makes a state? The people that live in it and what they need and want.

[The Angry Artist]

SLE said:

But states do count. Different states have different industries, problems, concerns, strengths, and needs that people in other states don't know. If you asked me what was going on in, say, Wyoming right now, I wouldn't have a clue. Do you know what's going on in Wyoming right now? You can cast an individual vote based on what matters to you, but you don't know what matters to people in other states and could be making a very, very wrong decision on their part (the plight of the fishermen!), and you wouldn't know it. If you're in the majority, the minority goes kaput.

Groups of people matter. As I said, if you're part of a group with a special concern that's a minority in the country but a majority in a state, then the electoral college is a huge benefit to you.

Obviously, not all groups are within state boundaries or are within boundaries at all. But states are groups in themselves - individual groups that are unique and need something different from its people and its federal government. And what makes a state? The people that live in it and what they need and want.

But without the Electoral College you would do the same thing. You would vote for the candidate you want based on your reasons, And as far as the fishermen, that's an issue for Congress. You're not voting for killing the fish or not. You're voting for who's president.

But what if the president that wants to kill the fish is elected? It's both the Senate's and Congress' job to stop the president from making a mistake.

[Princess Ember Mononoke]

Sollu, I don't see where you're coming from IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE.

You see, right now you're state is almost insignificant because it only has two electoral votes. What difference would it make if every single vote, from every single person, were counted? There would still be the same number of votes for your state proportionately, becuase the electoral system is based on population anyway.

Everybody in Maine could vote for, say, Bush, and if everyone else votes Kerry, it won't matter in the least bit.

Erm... that's the way it is NOW. Two electoral votes aren't going to beat out all the rest.

[sollunaestrella]

Princess said:

Erm... that's the way it is NOW. Two electoral votes aren't going to beat out all the rest.

Well, of course not. But we have a heck of a lot more say in the electoral college than we do the popular vote. As I said before, would the president really care about my vote? There are precious few people here compared to everywhere else. Even if I'm undecided, I doubt a president would care about a few undecided voters living up in Maine when there are a lot of undecided voters elsewhere in New York. And he will want to appeal to New York more than to Maine - because, obviously, there are more people there to vote for him. Nothing to do with state - just with the way the PEOPLE are and the POPULATION. I will be overlooked and, in general, uncared for. If the votes of my people don't matter, there is no reason, unless the candidate happens to be a person who (heaven forbid) actually CARES about the country and EVERYONE in it, for him to care about me and my protection. Which could lead to problems.

Yes, that's in part what Congress is for - to keep the president in check. But the president is, you have to admit, a large part of the government. Even though Congress keeps him in check, the president also keeps Congress in check.

Yes, the state IS important. Maine values ARE, in general, different than New York values simply because of the differences in industry and other things. So if Maine generally votes a certain way, it's for a reason. Not everything rests on Congress's shoulders, and the way a MINORITY of people feels should count SOMETHING so that their opinion will at least be taken into account and cared about and have SOME attention paid to it even though it can't sway an entire election.