Comments

Molly wrote on May 7, 2008 12:27 PM:

" thi is an abomination! even if your favorite candidate wins most american votes they could loose to the system! "




Dave wrote on Mar 21, 2008 9:19 AM:

" Besides all of that, states are currently working towards finding ways around it. Interstate compacts that force electors to ignore their own states popular vote. Forced combined voting. Forced proportional voting. Some have even tried to get the district based method of Maine and Nebraska to be nation wide. The odd thing is each of these ideas has a different idea of what the EC really does to begin with. It seems our own government (feds and states) is a little cloudy when it comes to what is and isn't constitutional about the EC. "




Dave wrote on Mar 21, 2008 9:13 AM:

" The EC creates unequal power bases between states. It allows the least popular canidate to take power. It focuses on large voting blocks in certain swing states (NY, Texas, and California were largely ignored in 2004 by both parties). And it creates a barrier to the creation of a third party. How does any of that benefit the country? "




Dave wrote on Mar 21, 2008 9:10 AM:

" People struggle every election to get people to vote, yet young and old alike report not voting because they feel their vote doesn't matter. That feeling has only strengthened since 2000. The person winning the popular vote lost. People across the country express outrage about the EC system, and many report not voting because of it. Why suppress the voting power of the people? "




Dave wrote on Mar 21, 2008 8:58 AM:

" No, they won't stop by the state no matter which way it goes. I'm just shooting down the arguement that the EC gives us more power, because in reality it doesn't. But, they would have to be concerned about ALL the people in ALL of the states. The canidates don't really care what the GOP or the Dems think in SD, thats sad, and makes our votes meaningless all together. In 2004, only 70% of registered voters turned out in SD. Almost 150,000 votes basically ignored as they voted for Kerry. Only 55% turned out nationally. "




Constitutional wrote on Mar 20, 2008 3:03 PM:

" Dave, under the "one-man one-vote" system, do you honestly think we'd get any more coverage by the candidates than we do now? They can only be in so many places in any given period of time. They will always go where they can get the most bang for their buck. Face it, if you want to live where a presidential candidate may spend a few hours out of their busy schedule (whether you're a Dem or GOP), you need to move out of SD. "




Dave wrote on Mar 20, 2008 9:34 AM:

" No matter how much work is done here by the Dems, this state's votes will go to the GOP. So why would either side be concerned with this state. Why would they care about us at all? They don't consider how their descisions affect us, or the other 15 states that have 5 or less votes. If every vote was equal, then they would have to worry about the democrats and independants in this state. They would have to worry about every voter. It is a gift that many founding fathers did not agree with. "




Dave wrote on Mar 20, 2008 9:22 AM:

" Lewie, do we play a major role now? California has 55 votes, we have 3. It's well known which states get the campaign funding. Large states get the attention, and even more is focused towards swing states that could tip in either party's favor. Since we, and many states in the midwest are neither swing states or have any electoral votes, we never even get considered as a stop along the way. "




Lewie wrote on Mar 19, 2008 1:23 PM:

" The Electoral College is one of the greatest gifts bestowed on us by our founding Fathers. Without the Electoral College this country would be controlled politically by the Eastern Seaboard and the West Coast. The fly over area of the United States would have very little voice in our government. "




Dave wrote on Mar 14, 2008 9:13 AM:

" This gentleman offered an opinion that he believes the current system needs to change, I support that idea, and have pointed out how the current system is being abused by states in unconstitutional ways. I have taken actions to get this changed, and it's obvious we are aware of the current system. You seem to have nothing to add besides the fact that it's in the constitution. The electoral college has been changed in 1804 and 1961. How we elect senators was changed in 1913. In fact how we handle the president/VP vote is seen as unconstitutional by many. "




Dave wrote on Mar 14, 2008 8:58 AM:

" So state laws that disregard the constitution are ok by you? Strangely unconstitutional for a person who pens as constitutional. Is the constitution now a living changing document, adapting to the time we are in? Does it not seem silly to have people lose the popular vote and yet still win an election? The majority of the people want 1 person, but laws formed decades ago force another person upon us? Slavery was once legal, women once had little to no rights. We changed those things. Should a single SD have more power than a single Californian? Why? "




Constitutional wrote on Mar 13, 2008 10:01 AM:

" Well Dave, get cracking and get amendments through 38 of the state legislatures to amend the Constitution. You do have a voice, according to the current rules. "Nothing in the constitution states that all the electoral votes in a state have to go to one canidate or the other." Exactly. We are a union of DIFFERENT states, NOT a homogeneous entity. When are you and Jerome going to understand that? "




Dave wrote on Mar 12, 2008 11:18 AM:

" The electoral college gives SD more weight in the election, but only to the majority party. It strips those that vote democrat from any power they have. Andrew Jackson, and many of the framers of the contstitution were in favor of a direct election, but were coerced into this system. It's time to embrace a system of 'One person, one vote.', not 'One person, one vote...unless you are not in the majority party of your state, then you might as well not show up.'. You'll find the GOP in certain states favors this idea also. "




Dave wrote on Mar 12, 2008 10:57 AM:

" Nothing in the constitution states that all the electoral votes in a state have to go to one canidate or the other. In fact, there have been several highly controversial times when they have not. In response to that, many states have passed laws stating that all electoral votes have to go to the same candidate, which is unconstitutional. Thats just one of many.
I'm glad to know that you don't care about the minority. I shouldn't have a voice in national politics because of my political affiliation...very interesting. "




Constitutional wrote on Mar 12, 2008 8:19 AM:

" Dave, quit whining. "My vote in this state is meaningless". We can't all be on the winning team. Do you think this is kindergarten? Here are your options: 1) Move to a blue state 2) Join the GOP. Otherwise, learn to live with the fact that you are in the minority here. Also, if you have proof of "all kinds of unconstitutional things", I want to see it. "




Constitutional wrote on Mar 11, 2008 2:03 PM:

" Jerome, why not take a few minutes and read the Constitution. Or better yet, the Federalist Papers. We are a union of STATES, not one homogenous political entity. If you don't like the way things work, amend the Constitution. "Our states are a vestige of colonial times"? Only 13 of them. The other 37 were accepted into the Union by a constitutional republic of states. The British Empire had nothing to do with that. Besides, the Electoral College favors smaller states http://www-tech.mit.edu/V112/N15/le.15o.html. Why should SD give that up? "




Dave wrote on Mar 11, 2008 10:51 AM:

" People complain about low voter turnout, and to be honest, this is one of the problems. Some people don't understand the system, others feel left out because of it. I'm a democrat, but when a presidential election comes around, I barely bother to care. My vote in this state is meaningless, as all three electoral votes will go to the GOP canidate. They say every vote counts, but that really isn't the case. Make every vote count equally and I bet people would flock to the voting booths. "




Dave wrote on Mar 11, 2008 10:48 AM:

" The electoral system is archaic. It's based on a belief that the general public shouldn't be allowed to decide the president because they aren't educated enough. It's the political big wigs last line of defense. Constitutionally the electoral votes don't even have to go the way of the popular vote in each state either. If you really study it (as I have) you'll see that states are currently doing all kinds of unconstitutional things with these electoral votes. It's time to toss this idea aside and simply make every vote count. "