quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

What interesting is Dick Morris. One time adviser to Bill Clinton. Clinton didn't have him on because he's an idiot. Quite the contrary. Then there's Nate Silver, the guru of '08.

They both can't be right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

Probably. It is amazing how fast people (regardless of ideology) can do a one-eighty when it suits their interests.

I, however, think doing away with the Electoral Collage would be a huge mistake. To do so would essentially disenfranchise anyone not living in one of the big cities. Today, candidates have to pay attention to the more rural areas because, if they cant get a few big (in terms of electoral votes) states, they can still win by picking up lots of little states. Without the electoral collage, the candidates need only pay attention to the big cities... the needs of rural people will be of no import to them. The people of some states need not be considered at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

Probably. It is amazing how fast people (regardless of ideology) can do a one-eighty when it suits their interests.

I, however, think doing away with the Electoral Collage would be a huge mistake. To do so would essentially disenfranchise anyone not living in one of the big cities. Today, candidates have to pay attention to the more rural areas because, if they cant get a few big (in terms of electoral votes) states, they can still win by picking up lots of little states. Without the electoral collage, the candidates need only pay attention to the big cities... the needs of rural people will be of no import to them. The people of some states need not be considered at all.

That is simply not true. Without the electoral college every voters vote counts the same. With the college small state voters are far more valuable.

For instance a voter in wyoming is one of 565k (roughly) and decides the fate of 3 electoral votes while a I, a voter in Illinois, am one of 12.9M and decide the fate of 20 electoral votes. So around 25 times as many people are worth less than 7 times as many votes. How is that right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

Probably. It is amazing how fast people (regardless of ideology) can do a one-eighty when it suits their interests.

I, however, think doing away with the Electoral Collage would be a huge mistake. To do so would essentially disenfranchise anyone not living in one of the big cities. Today, candidates have to pay attention to the more rural areas because, if they cant get a few big (in terms of electoral votes) states, they can still win by picking up lots of little states. Without the electoral collage, the candidates need only pay attention to the big cities... the needs of rural people will be of no import to them. The people of some states need not be considered at all.

That is simply not true. Without the electoral college every voters vote counts the same. With the college small state voters are far more valuable.

For instance a voter in wyoming is one of 565k (roughly) and decides the fate of 3 electoral votes while a I, a voter in Illinois, am one of 12.9M and decide the fate of 20 electoral votes. So around 25 times as many people are worth less than 7 times as many votes. How is that right?

It's a form of protection of the minority electorate (demographic), a safeguard to what makes this country work. The electoral college is a check on the skew that would happen.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b
Probably. It is amazing how fast people (regardless of ideology) can do a one-eighty when it suits their interests.
I, however, think doing away with the Electoral Collage would be a huge mistake. To do so would essentially disenfranchise anyone not living in one of the big cities. Today, candidates have to pay attention to the more rural areas because, if they cant get a few big (in terms of electoral votes) states, they can still win by picking up lots of little states. Without the electoral collage, the candidates need only pay attention to the big cities... the needs of rural people will be of no import to them. The people of some states need not be considered at all.

That is simply not true. Without the electoral college every voters vote counts the same. With the college small state voters are far more valuable.
For instance a voter in wyoming is one of 565k (roughly) and decides the fate of 3 electoral votes while a I, a voter in Illinois, am one of 12.9M and decide the fate of 20 electoral votes. So around 25 times as many people are worth less than 7 times as many votes. How is that right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

Probably. It is amazing how fast people (regardless of ideology) can do a one-eighty when it suits their interests.

I, however, think doing away with the Electoral Collage would be a huge mistake. To do so would essentially disenfranchise anyone not living in one of the big cities. Today, candidates have to pay attention to the more rural areas because, if they cant get a few big (in terms of electoral votes) states, they can still win by picking up lots of little states. Without the electoral collage, the candidates need only pay attention to the big cities... the needs of rural people will be of no import to them. The people of some states need not be considered at all.

That is simply not true. Without the electoral college every voters vote counts the same. With the college small state voters are far more valuable.

For instance a voter in wyoming is one of 565k (roughly) and decides the fate of 3 electoral votes while a I, a voter in Illinois, am one of 12.9M and decide the fate of 20 electoral votes. So around 25 times as many people are worth less than 7 times as many votes. How is that right?

It's a form of protection of the minority electorate (demographic), a safeguard to what makes this country work. The electoral college is a check on the skew that would happen.

What?

How would direct majority vote skew anything? 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

What interesting is Dick Morris. One time adviser to Bill Clinton. Clinton didn't have him on because he's an idiot. Quite the contrary. Then there's Nate Silver, the guru of '08.

They both can't be right.

quote:

For instance, the needs or desires of California would dwarf those of Wyoming.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

Probably. It is amazing how fast people (regardless of ideology) can do a one-eighty when it suits their interests.

I, however, think doing away with the Electoral Collage would be a huge mistake. To do so would essentially disenfranchise anyone not living in one of the big cities. Today, candidates have to pay attention to the more rural areas because, if they cant get a few big (in terms of electoral votes) states, they can still win by picking up lots of little states. Without the electoral collage, the candidates need only pay attention to the big cities... the needs of rural people will be of no import to them. The people of some states need not be considered at all.

That is simply not true. Without the electoral college every voters vote counts the same. With the college small state voters are far more valuable.

For instance a voter in wyoming is one of 565k (roughly) and decides the fate of 3 electoral votes while a I, a voter in Illinois, am one of 12.9M and decide the fate of 20 electoral votes. So around 25 times as many people are worth less than 7 times as many votes. How is that right?

It's a form of protection of the minority electorate (demographic), a safeguard to what makes this country work. The electoral college is a check on the skew that would happen.

What?

How would direct majority vote skew anything? 

For one thing, it could favor the needs of large metro areas over smaller rural ones. For instance, the needs or desires of California would dwarf those of Wyoming. High populace coastal states could hold sway over middle states.

Some, and I include myself, see the electoral college as a potential check on some remote possibility of the electorate going absolutely mad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

FR

A few thoughts on the Electoral College:

-- Given the current demographics of the U.S. the EC gives amplifies the influence of red states. I can't help wondering that that plays a role in some folks' support for it.

-- The winner-take-all system of assigning electoral votes (prevalent in most states) essentially trashes the votes of anyone who didn't vote for the winner.

-- In 1876, 1888, and 2000, the Electoral College nullified the popular vote. Each time, a Republican moved into the White House.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
FR
A few thoughts on the Electoral College:
-- Given the current demographics of the U.S. the EC amplifies the influence of red states. I can't help wondering if that plays a role in some folks' support for it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
The needs of metropolitan areas should dwarf those of rural low population density areas. Those metro areas contain many times as many people and this country is supposed to by and for the people.