Let's do the math for real (call to drop the electoral college)

Atlanta Journal Constitution ^ | November 9, 2004

[cricket]

"Can I vote for a dimocrat for pooper-scooper? They just seem so natural at the job ;-P"

NO!!! He might be drafted by the 'rats' to be Hillary's running mate!

[Cincinatus' Wife]

LOL

[vannrox]

We are NOT a Democracy.
We are a Constitutional Republic.

Study our Constitution before you make such wild and crazy statements.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

I've been told that we "became" a democracy in the 1940's, when liberals started calling us a democracy.

Or when we passed the 17th amendment. No we have two people's houses.

[InterceptPoint]

Imagine the following scenario:

We elect Presidents based on popular vote.

Bush wins with a popular vote margin of 5000 votes.

Kerry demands a recount in all 50 states

Kerry contests the vote count in all 50 states.

If you though Florida 2000 was a circus you would have the time of your life with this one. And the Democrats would always win because they have the vote manufacturing systems in place to win the close ones. They could get the votes they need in the most convenient places: Philadelphia, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco ...

[AmishDude]

Problems with getting rid of the EC:

• Fraud writ large. A few thousand "votes" in Chicago could change the entire election and Republicans in Iowa could do nothing to remedy it.
• Endless streams of candidates. The prize of the presidency will be too hard for any two bit publicity hound to resist. Even an Australian instant runoff won't solve it. Too many peoples' second choice will be another third party loser. We'd have to have a runoff. I don't want a runoff.
• Non-uniform voting standards. We'd have to have a department of elections on the national level just to keep things straight. Lots of potential corruption.
• Campaign by TV. A candidate would never have to travel anywhere. He could campaign wholly through television ads in a few select markets. This would allow the candidate to avoid scrutiny and contact with the press. No wonder Hillary wants it.
• Short campaigns. The primary system weeds out weak candidates like Howard Deans and Alan Keyeseses. With a popular vote system, they can bypass this process, stand for the general election and have a very good chance of winning. See Ross Perot.

[dfwgator]

Oh great, so instead of having to recount a couple of million votes in a close election, we'll have to count over 120 million ballots instead. Yeah that sounds like a good idea...NOT!

[dirtboy]

The old reasoning that the campaigns would ignore small states and spend all their time and money in the largest, voter-rich states simply no longer holds true. Instead, the candidates spent the campaign in a dozen or so states where polls showed the race was closest

Precisely because of the Electoral College, you dolts.

Only a liberal could screw up the application of a fact this badly.

[dead]

It will never happen.

Let the liberals tilt at this windmill for a couple generations.

It'll keep them from attaining more realistic goals.

[N. Theknow]

I got a better idea.

Decide the election by the number of square miles of counties won.

[SCALEMAN]

And while were about it, we just should allot Senators by state population. It's unfair that NH has two senators and so does CA. (do I need the sarcasm tag?)

[dirtboy]

For the better part of 50 years, polls have indicated a majority of Americans think the Electoral College is outdated.

And for the better part of 215 years, the Electoral College has been a bulwhark against the tyranny of the majority in a pure democracy. The libs can whine all they want, but there ain't enough small states willing to ratify an amendment that will diminish their influence and dismantle a key protection against larger states.

[Little Ray]

Great idea: Let allow a few urban areas, the NE Corridor, Chicago, LA, and few others to totally dominate the rest of the country and determine its policies.

NOT.

[Ready4Freddy]

....but the Senators kept getting drunk, so they passed Prohibition? ;>)

[calenel]

"Confidence that every vote counts is a bedrock principle of American democracy,"

Only one vote counts. The one that puts you ahead of the other guy.

And, naturally, the same can be said of EVs. And States. In 2000 the State that mattered was FL. In 2004 it was OH. The only reason OH wasn't called much earlier for President Bush was because the media wanted to extend the drama. The election was over long before OH was called.

[Only1choice____Freedom]

Why is it that we only hear of this when the Dem's lose?

[Doctor Stochastic]

I still like the Mundt Plan. One vote for each Congressional District and two for each State. Fraud in one district only one EV directly and two at most.

[mrsmith]

"On tonight's "America Votes" we we come to the end of our televised election. Districts T through Z casts their votes! The tension builds as the representative of the District of Tennessee, stretching from the mighty Mississippi to the northern Atlanta suburbs to the outskirts of Knoxville comes to the podium"

"This is so exciting Regis! Democracy in action, live on TV!"

[kittymyrib]

Since this can only happen if 3/4ths of the states vote to change the Constitution, this is a silly pipe dream on the part of the losing libs. The states with smaller populations know that 3 or 4 states would run the country, and obviously, that with the exception of Texas, they would be blue states. Fugeddaboudit. It will never happen.

[Chemist_Geek]

One vote for each Congressional District and two for each State.

Not a bad idea, but it'd have to be implemented uniformly all at once.