Bush is up by 3 and a half million votes nationwide and still maxes out at 289 electoral votes. A slight increase, but no electoral landslide to be sure. If we have a national mandate, like we sadly do, we oughta have a winner.

 

One person, one vote. No more, no less.

Bush is up by 3 and a half million votes nationwide and still maxes out at 289 electoral votes. A slight increase, but no electoral landslide to be sure. If we have a national mandate, like we sadly do, we oughta have a winner.

 

One person, one vote. No more, no less.

I agree. If I vote democrat in Indiana; I waste my time. However, it means a little something more if we do away with the electoral college...

 

However...please don't make this a little battle about who won and who lost. I totally understand Bush won fair and square according to this system. I'm not arguing that.

Neither am I. Bush won this election. And the Electoral College is preventing that from being the case. It's very unlikely, but still entirely possible that Ohio could narrow enough to call a recount with absentee and provisional balloting. That keeps us in limbo a lot longer than we should be.

Someone remind me why we still need the electoral college again? I forget every four years or so..

Someone remind me why we still need the electoral college again?  I forget every four years or so..

i got my degree in state projection in 4 years from that place

The original framers of the constitution needed a way for the states to get together and elect someone to oversee the states. At the time, we were going to be a group of states united together, not individual Americans who happen to live in a given state. Look at our name: United *States* of America. States first, America second.

 

Put another way, you were first a citizen of Boston, then a citizen of the US. Now, in reality we think of ourselves as Americans first, who happen to live in Boston, but could just as easily be living in New York.

 

Taken into that context, smaller states prefered one state, one vote. This was, like many things, a compromise. But at all times, it was the states getting together and electing the President. It was not about citizens electing a President.

 

We have ceded many state strengths to the Federal Government, and have created a bigger, bulkier, and more powerful Federal Government than the original framers could have envisioned. Would they have made changes if they could have seen 200 years into the future? I doubt it, too many conflicting interests from small and big states.

Wouldn't it give more incentive to vote, if your vote actually counted for more than a percentage of an electoral college?

Wouldn't it give more incentive to vote, if your vote actually counted for more than a percentage of an electoral college?

The original framers would want you to be thinking you are helping to determine which candidate your *state* would like to see as President. Later, it would be, did your state's candidate get elected?

A lot changed after the Civil War. The word "Union" became common when referring to the nation at that time. The focus shifted from the individual states to the nation as a whole.

I just think it's an arcane process in the modern United States. In a way, everyone in Illinois who voted for Bush had their vote "not count" because every electoral vote went to Kerry. The opposite is true in Ohio. Despite all that, Bush won this election fair and square, it's not like four years ago and there should not be nearly as big a controversy about the result this time around.

I just think it's an arcane process in the modern United States.  In a way, everyone in Illinois who voted for Bush had their vote "not count" because every electoral vote went to Kerry.  The opposite is true in Ohio.  Despite all that, Bush won this election fair and square, it's not like four years ago and there should not be nearly as big a controversy about the result this time around.

I totally disagree. If you vote, you speak. You may not have voted for the candidate that your states EV's go for, but it is a voice.

I totally disagree.  If you vote, you speak.  You may not have voted for the candidate that your states EV's go for, but it is a voice.

I really feel that there would be even a better voter turnout if each vote counted. If I voted for Kerry in Indiana, I wasted my time.

I totally disagree.  If you vote, you speak.  You may not have voted for the candidate that your states EV's go for, but it is a voice.

Absolutely. It was just like the 1 or 2 people who were still Billy Koch fans to the end. In spite of what everyone else said, they still made their voices heard. The elections are the sameway in this respect. Just because your side loses, doesn't mean your voice isn't heard.

I really feel that there would be even a better voter turnout if each vote counted.  If I voted for Kerry in Indiana, I wasted my time.

I voted against both major party candidates in Kentucky and I don't feel I wasted my time. It was my way of telling them that they have to do better to get my vote.

I voted against both major party candidates in Kentucky and I don't feel I wasted my time.  It was my way of telling them that they have to do better to get my vote.

Don't you agree we would get more voters if we did away w/ the electoral college though? If no, why not?

Don't you agree we would get more voters if we did away w/ the electoral college though?  If no, why not?

I can't disagree with you there. I just don't believe in the concept of a wasted vote.

Don't you agree we would get more voters if we did away w/ the electoral college though?  If no, why not?

I don't. I think the rural vote would die.

The Electoral College was made back then the consitution was formed I believe. The small states wanted representation so they decided to vote within the state to vote for electors who voted for the president. I like the Electoral College except the fact that Maine and Nebraska split their votes for each district. Another part I don't like is that there is no need to elect voters to vote for the president. It's happened around 15 times where some voter from the Electoral College switched votes. It happened in 2000 with a lady from Washington D.C. She didn't want to vote for either so she put down no vote. Get rid of the Electoral College voters and keep the Electoral College.

It's not that your voice isn't heard, it's that a president-elect looks at the electoral map and sees a bunch more red states than blue states. From that he can draw some conclusions and say things like "The American people have clearly spoken" and rule accordingly. I just wish the popular vote was taken as more meaningful since it is the finest granularity we can break down this country and get the most accurate picture of where people stand.

I just think it's an arcane process in the modern United States.  In a way, everyone in Illinois who voted for Bush had their vote "not count" because every electoral vote went to Kerry.  The opposite is true in Ohio.  Despite all that, Bush won this election fair and square, it's not like four years ago and there should not be nearly as big a controversy about the result this time around.

But you are taking it one step too far. Your vote is to decide which candidate Illinois wants for President. Your vote mattered, your vote did count, you just lost. You are voting in the Illinois election for President.

I believe there was a time and place for the Electoral College and that has passed. How much does it really mean to be Illinoisan anymore? Does it have any meaning? I know people that live here and registered to vote in other states like Wisconsin where there vote made a difference. The fact is we are all Americans first.

Bush is up by 3 and a half million votes nationwide and still maxes out at 289 electoral votes. A slight increase, but no electoral landslide to be sure. If we have a national mandate, like we sadly do, we oughta have a winner.

 

One person, one vote. No more, no less.

Imo, the electoral college is the best system. It keeps some power within the states, meaning politicians have to campaign all over the country, but at the same time it gives an advantage to the population because states with larger populations are awarded with more votes.

Can someone tell me exactly how this whole thing with the electoral college works? Ive never understood it.

All you need to know is that every state has electors or people designated to vote for the president. Illinois has 21, one for each congressman/woman in the state. Whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote in the state will get all the votes in the state (99.9% of the time). These are the votes that count.

I don't.  I think the rural vote would die.

I think you mean, b/c rural votes would become less important than they are now, rural voters would be less interested in voting. But if that effect partly determines voter turnout, the switch would increase large state voter turnout. How do you know what the balance would be?