OK, we've got about three or four different threads derailed on this topic (and a lot of that is my fault, no doubt), so it's time to have a central location on the subject.

just in time for me to go to sleep...nice timing Green Habit, nice timing

Biggest flaw: people's votes count for nothing if they live in a safe state. I know there are two exceptions to this- Maine and somewhere else.

Biggest plus: the way CNN has to explain it in detail every 4 years brings a smile to my face. And the fact that there could actually be a more absurd system of voting than the Senate voting system here makes me feel slightly better about my own country.

Wouldn't the same would be true if the election wasn't close and you were voting for the loser in a safe country vs. a safe state? Don't worry. Your vote counts.

[quote="Hinny"]Biggest flaw: people's votes count for nothing if they live in a safe state. I know there are two exceptions to this- Maine and somewhere else. [quote]

Maine and Nebraska.

The winner of the state overall gets an automatic two electoral votes (attributed to the two senators from the state). THe winner of each House district gets an electoral vote. Since these rules took place (I think in the early 1970s) neither state has ever had any split. The overall winner always won every district.

and voting is not about wether you win or loose. It's about being heard. Don't trust polls. They are not predicting the future. For every person sitting at home on election day because they think they're vote is a lost cause, there could be 2 people sitting at home because they think they're guy is gonna win anyways.

If you live in Massachusetts or Texas right now, who you vote for is not important. If you live in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, it is monumentally important.

The electoral college makes some votes worth more than others, both literally and figuratively.

Literally: If you live in Wyoming, your vote is worth more than if you live in California. The pop of CA is 35,484,453 and they have 54 votes, so each person is worth .00000152 electoral votes. The pop of WY is 501,242 and they have 3 votes, so each person is worth .00000598 electoral votes. Those are very small numbers, but the WY number is 3.93 times taht of the California number. (I realize that I should have used voters or at least people over 18, but I was trying to be quick, this gives the gist of my point).

Figuratively: The truly valuable votes have little to do with the size of the state and almost all to do with how close the race is in a state. Do you live in PA, WI, IA, MN, MO, OH (and a few otehrs)? If so, your vote can help sway a state for Bush or Kerry. Are you a Bush supporter in Massachusetts? If so, your vote for Bush helps nothing. Kerry is gonna win your state and you know it. Your voting for Bush does NOTHING to help him win the election (unlike if it were popular vote). Same if you are a Kerry supporter in Texas. (and a lot of other states, but MA and TX are the most obvious).



Why I hate the electoral college.
1. It is a colonial holdover established to keep the vote out of the hands of the people.

2. It makes certain states WAY to powerful. California is worth approximatly a 10th of the election. You win California by 1 vote and you get all 54 (or whatever) electoral votes. It lends to candidates paying too much attention to California and others.

3. "Swing States" vs. sure things. Right now, we have 10 to 15 "Swing States." The candidates are pandering to those states almost exclusively. Why bother with Texas or Massachusetts since those electoral votes are not up for grabs, anyway? Every time you hear the candidates mention a specific place it is Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania and a couple of otehrs. I live in Connecticut and it looks like Kerry should win my state without much problem. Therefore my vote does not count. If I lived in Wisconsin, my vote would be very important.

4. Disproportationate representation. "1 person 1 vote" makes every vote equal. Now, if you take the electoral college system, a vote in Wyoming is worth more than a vote in California (electoral votes divided by total population). Some people have more importnat votes in less important states (Wyoming) and otehrs have the opposite (California).

5. What if there was a truly strong third party? Do you know what would happen? If Bush took 25% of the electoral votes, Kerry took 45% and Nader tood 30%, who would win the election? Bush. If nobody gets 50% + 1 of the electoral votes, congress votes for president. Since it is a GOP congress, they'd vote for Bush. I think most of us agree that the two-party system stinks. We want strong third (and 4th and 5th...) parties. If that happens, though, the electoral college will litterally take the votes away from the people.

Don't EVER trust polls. For everyone one person sitting at home on election night because they thought their vote was worthless, there could be 2 people sitting at home because they thought their guys gonna win anyways. Would you say the same thing if the popular vote polls were leaning in a landslide towards the person you're voting against? I guess you shouldn't vote because your guys gonna loose anyway, right? What sense does that make? You'll never be heard and people like you will never have a voice because they always think they're gonna loose. Get out and vote! You might be surprised. It's not about winning and loosing. It's about being heard.

Some of what you say is important for some people to hear. I am in Connecticut. Kerry should win our state fairly easilly, but who knows who will come out and vote? Maybe a lot of Kerry voters won't want to, or a lot of young people not expected to vote will come out and vote for Bush.

You are right that people should vote to be heard. That's why I want to vote for Cobb, to be heared (truth is, I'll probably vote for Kerry just incase the above scenario happens). Vote third party, vote Dem or GOP, just vote. I'd tell that to anyone from Texas, Massachusetts, wherever.

I don' agree with your assertion that it is not about winning or losing. That's what it's about. Whether or not the electoral college is the proper way to select a presdient is entirely about winning and losing. I think it is a very flawed system for reasons I posted above.

Just because people should not use the electoral college as an excuse not to vote (which they should not), does not mean it's the best way to elect someone.

Down with the electoral college!

Sideshow Bob made the good points, I believe. This system is not one person, one vote. My vote doesn't really count, but I do it anyway. I love voting, which is somewhat unfortunate because the two cities I've lived in always go my way. I really don't make a significant difference.

Do polls really discourage people from voting? The people whom I've known that weren't registered always told me that they didn't like the candidates, or didn't know enough, or didn't care. But now they're all voting on Tuesday, thank god.

Anyway, sorry, the electoral college was formed because things were a little more low-tech back in the day, right? It was harder to deal with all the white men's votes on horseback. They needed to have a system in place to deal with everything in a reasonable amount of time. I think (sometimes) that we've advanced and could handle taking care of everyone's votes. Then our votes would truly matter, and then maybe call our society democratic. Or get closer.

What I'd like to know is, what is a good reason to keep the EC?

More important than winning or loosing, is that you are heard. Of coarse you want to win, but you must first be heard. On election day, we are saying who we want in charge. We, as a whole, are doing the hiring. We should not look down on people who disagree with us as possible winners or loosers. On election day, we become one voice. The more people who educate themselves and vote, the better we hire someone that best represents us as a whole. You are not picking the president. We all are.

So do those of you who disagree with the electoral college also propose we eliminate the senate and the house? Should we eliminate state legislatures? Should we replace all these intricate systems with simple federal referendums?

The electoral college lies at the heart of our form of government. We do not live in a pure democracy. We live in a democratic republic. In a republican form of government each member of the union forfeits a portion of their sovereignty in return for the protection provided by the union. If we lived in a pure democracy, those smaller states would have absolutely no reason to stay in the union being they'd have no voice, no representation. And the earlier poster was correct, due to the ratio of population/# of electoral votes, there is a tad bit of a weighted system towards the smaller states. I find the difference negligible and is certainly not good enough of a reason to scrap a system that epitomizes a republican form of government.

I think the system is outstanding and should never be changed....and a say that from a non-partisan standpoint.

I'm sorry, but very brief sidebar:

You know what else is about winning or losing, Sideshow Bob? Big 10 basketball. And the Illini will be the winners .

But sometimes, the person we choose doesn't get the job.

exactly! What's to say states wouldn't want to break away from the country if there vote was so insignificant it never counted.

Hey this is about the elctoral college not about the Wisconsin 2005 Big Ten Title!

If your talking about 2000, that election was too close to call. 100,000 votes was well within the margin of error. Unfortunately the courts had to decide before chaos erupted.

Why would states break away? If there wasn't an electoral college, then a president would be chosen by popular vote. What does that have to do with the state? If a president was chosen by popular vote, the state isn't involved- the individuals of the country are involved.

Am I missing something?

without the electoral college, however, your vote might not count unless you live in one of the 5 or 6 biggest cities in the U.S. Win the 5 or 6 biggest cities in nation, and you'd win the presidency.

If you like in, say, South Dakota your vote is now meaningless. It is cancelled out by the votes of 10 New Yorkers.

With the electoral college, you at least can contribute toward the election;s outcome, even in South Dakota.

If we got rid of the electoral college, what would be the point of having states? Maybe we should eliminate states too, and just be one country.. Like the electoral college, having the nation divided into states helps balance things out.