Al Gore calls for an end to the electoral college...Hmmmm.

[wgadget]

What do you guys think?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/246951-al-gore-calls-for-end-to-electoral-college

[Chester Copperpot]

If al gore wants to end it, then I want to keep it.

[ShaneEnochs]

He wants presidential races to be decided by the popular vote.

[jbauer]

Thats all good and fine but we're the United STATES of America. The votes should be cast as states to keep representation clean.

[JK/SEA]

getting rid of the electoral college would shut out low population areas. New York and Los Angeles would dictate.

[angelatc]

There's a big movement in the left, and the moderate right, to do just this. It as good as gone, I think. Once the left gets an idea they don't stop until their done.

Google "National Popular Vote" initiative to see how far they already are.

[tttppp]

What do you guys think?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/246951-al-gore-calls-for-end-to-electoral-college

I completely agree. In my state of Connecticut, my vote will never count because the state will always be won by a Democrat. I would prefer a system where my vote counted and they actually count my vote.

[PaulConventionWV]

I completely agree. In my state of Connecticut, my vote will never count because the state will always be won by a Democrat. I would prefer a system where my vote counted and they actually count my vote.

So by your "vote counting" you mean your candidate actually winning? Your vote counts regardless (not in today's system, mind you), and living in a less liberal area won't make any difference. It just means the demographics of the area in which you live are different.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Gee I wonder why

[Elwar]

Sounds like he supports the RNC's way of electing their candidate.

Screw delegates or electors. This is a DEMOCRACY damnit!

[tttppp]

So by your "vote counting" you mean your candidate actually winning? Your vote counts regardless (not in today's system, mind you), and living in a less liberal area won't make any difference. It just means the demographics of the area in which you live are different.

The same can be said for states that are completely republican. There's no need to vote because you know the outcome ahead of time. Its not the fact that my vote doesn't count that bothers me, its the fact that I know it won't count before I even vote.

[Lucille]

He wants presidential races to be decided by the popular vote.


Sounds like he supports the RNC's way of electing their candidate.

Screw delegates or electors. This is a DEMOCRACY damnit!

Yup! So does Saul Anuzis, former nat'l committeeman (R-MI). It's always nice when "left" and right" have a meeting of the minds.

[Josalyn]

Well, this makes me second think my opinion on getting rid of the electoral college, that's for sure.

[angelatc]

bump

This would be the official end of the Republic. It's almost the exact opposite of repealing the 17th Amendment.

[mad cow]

No candidate would campaign in a city with less than 500K population or State with less than one million ever again.
We would be ruled by cities with professional sports teams.

[libertygrl]

The same can be said for states that are completely republican. There's no need to vote because you know the outcome ahead of time. Its not the fact that my vote doesn't count that bothers me, its the fact that I know it won't count before I even vote.

Wait a minute... This always confuses me. I'm trying to understand all this to help someone out on another forum. This person is a Republican and lives in NY. They were told that even though they will be voting for Romney, their vote really won't help him because NYS is primarily Democratic and they will all vote for Obama. So, if I'm reading your posts correctly, this is true then?? My friend's vote won't really matter?

[Elwar]

Wait a minute... This always confuses me. I'm trying to understand all this to help someone out on another forum. This person is a Republican and lives in NY. They were told that even though they will be voting for Romney, their vote really won't help him because NYS is primarily Democratic and they will all vote for Obama. So, if I'm reading your posts correctly, this is true then?? My friend's vote won't really matter?

The only vote that counts is the votes of the Supreme Court on deciding if a close race should go one way or another.


But yes, in the case of your Republican friend in New York. Voting Republican is like trying to change the color of the ocean by pissing into it.

[tttppp]

Wait a minute... This always confuses me. I'm trying to understand all this to help someone out on another forum. This person is a Republican and lives in NY. They were told that even though they will be voting for Romney, their vote really won't help him because NYS is primarily Democratic and they will all vote for Obama. So, if I'm reading your posts correctly, this is true then?? My friend's vote won't really matter?

That sounds true, but I don't know NY as well as Connecticut.

[wgadget]

Wait a minute... This always confuses me. I'm trying to understand all this to help someone out on another forum. This person is a Republican and lives in NY. They were told that even though they will be voting for Romney, their vote really won't help him because NYS is primarily Democratic and they will all vote for Obama. So, if I'm reading your posts correctly, this is true then?? My friend's vote won't really matter?

From what I understand, only the "swing" states matter: OH, MN, PA, etc.

[Acala]

The electoral college was one of several mechanisms in the original Constitution designed to keep the States in the driver's seat and prevent a national democracy. But the power grabbers in Washington have succeeded in convincing people that democracy is the goal rather than an evil to be avoided and so the last vestiges of the power of the states is heading for the chopping block.

[tttppp]

No candidate would campaign in a city with less than 500K population or State with less than one million ever again.
We would be ruled by cities with professional sports teams.

What's more important, a candidate visiting your city, or your voting actually counting?

[RonRules]

It's a real bad move for the Democrats, at least this year.

It's a virtual tie with the popular vote, but a huge lead with the Electoral College.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/author/nate-silver/

[mad cow]

What's more important, a candidate visiting your city, or your voting actually counting?

The States,not the People elect the President.Article 2,section 1 does not even mention voting,except by the Electors.The State Legislatures could choose their Electors by a hot dog eating contest by my reading of it.

Would Vermont,say,like to have their choice overwhelmed by an order of magnitude by the choice of New York City?

[Seraphim]

Election results through popular vote only - sounds like hell on earth.

[tttppp]

The States,not the People elect the President.Article 2,section 1 does not even mention voting,except by the Electors.The State Legislatures could choose their Electors by a hot dog eating contest by my reading of it.

Would Vermont,say,like to have their choice overwhelmed by an order of magnitude by the choice of New York City?

Who cares where you live? Everyone's vote should hold equal weight. Its not fair that voters of just a few states can decide an election, but voters of most states are just wasting your time. We are not electing a governor, we are electing a president. States should have no say in this, voters should.

[mad cow]

Who cares where you live? Everyone's vote should hold equal weight. Its not fair that voters of just a few states can decide an election, but voters of most states are just wasting your time. We are not electing a governor, we are electing a president. States should have no say in this, voters should.

I disagree with every fiber of my being,but you might get your wish.
Be careful what you wish for.

[Seraphim]

Lol - go to Europe and tell me how well you think that system is working out.

The State representitives ARE chosen by the people, their job is then to choose the nations leader. Was. Till those g'dam amendments.



Who cares where you live? Everyone's vote should hold equal weight. Its not fair that voters of just a few states can decide an election, but voters of most states are just wasting your time. We are not electing a governor, we are electing a president. States should have no say in this, voters should.

[PaulConventionWV]

The same can be said for states that are completely republican. There's no need to vote because you know the outcome ahead of time. Its not the fact that my vote doesn't count that bothers me, its the fact that I know it won't count before I even vote.

What do you suggest?

[Keith and stuff]

I like it. Then every single vote in the country could be challenged. Maybe the challenge will last a decade or so. Maybe Obama can be president forever?

[ronpaulfollower999]

I'm pretty sure back in the day, each state had a different method for how electors were chosen. Some left it to the state house, others had a system similar to today's. Perhaps the most favorable would be to split determine electoral college by congressional district. Nebraska and Maine currently use this system.

[matt0611]

Al Gore has a terrible idea. I am not surprised.

[Acala]

Who cares where you live? Everyone's vote should hold equal weight. Its not fair that voters of just a few states can decide an election, but voters of most states are just wasting your time. We are not electing a governor, we are electing a president. States should have no say in this, voters should.

The Federal government was a compact between the states intended ONLY to facilitate certain things that the states thought could be better handled by a centralized AGENT of the states. This is why the President was to be elected by the States. This is why Senators were to be elected by the States. This is why the states can call a Constitutional convention. And so on. The Federal power grab has included an agenda of removing the power of the States. Indeed, it is nearly gone. Removing the electoral college is the last bit.

Democracy has failed, always and everywhere. That is why the founders tried to avoid it and tie its hands.

[kathy88]

I live in a swing state. What to do?

[tttppp]

The Federal government was a compact between the states intended ONLY to facilitate certain things that the states thought could be better handled by a centralized AGENT of the states. This is why the President was to be elected by the States. This is why Senators were to be elected by the States. This is why the states can call a Constitutional convention. And so on. The Federal power grab has included an agenda of removing the power of the States. Indeed, it is nearly gone. Removing the electoral college is the last bit.

Democracy has failed, always and everywhere. That is why the founders tried to avoid it and tie its hands.

Democracy has failed because our government was poorly designed. Why is really a separate topic. But it has nothing to do with state rights. Additionally its absurd that some people consider states rights to be more important than individuals rights.

[MelissaWV]

Eh. Some states are not exactly equal on this, and it would have produced a very interesting set of results this year.

I don't particularly like the Electoral College, but if we're to go to a strictly popular vote, there should be one hell of a paper trail, and every vote should be counted (which will take longer than you think; factor in overseas votes). I do not think that's realistic. It's much easier to abuse.

[anaconda]

Why is this statist thug even relevant?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbLK4RZDdzI

[PaulConventionWV]

What's more important, a candidate visiting your city, or your voting actually counting?

You don't get it. It's much easier to rule over one collective. We don't want that. We want states to be represented.

[PaulConventionWV]

Who cares where you live? Everyone's vote should hold equal weight. Its not fair that voters of just a few states can decide an election, but voters of most states are just wasting your time. We are not electing a governor, we are electing a president. States should have no say in this, voters should.

Okay, mister Direct Democracy. Don't know what you're doing here if you believe that.

[PaulConventionWV]

Democracy has failed because our government was poorly designed. Why is really a separate topic. But it has nothing to do with state rights. Additionally its absurd that some people consider states rights to be more important than individuals rights.

It has nothing to do with state rights? Okay, sure, states don't have rights, they have powers. But you have clearly demonstrated that you have not the slightest shade of an idea of what you are talking about.

[tttppp]

You don't get it. It's much easier to rule over one collective. We don't want that. We want states to be represented.

And by doing so, some people would have the right to vote and others wouldn't. Everyone was meant to have equal voting rights. People in swing states should not have more of a say.

[Acala]

Democracy has failed because our government was poorly designed. Why is really a separate topic. But it has nothing to do with state rights. Additionally its absurd that some people consider states rights to be more important than individuals rights.

Democracy has failed everywhere in the world since ancient Greece up to today. The reason is simple - the people break into factions and vote themselves benefits at each other's expense. And the whole thing collapses. The Founders tried to prevent that by LIMITING the powers avaialble to democratic action. Much of the Bill of Rights is directly ANTI-democratic - limiting what a democratic majority could do. Still, we have slipped into the death spiral of democracy.

[Acala]

And by doing so, some people would have the right to vote and others wouldn't. Everyone was meant to have equal voting rights. People in swing states should not have more of a say.

The Federal government was "meant" to be a tool for the States to resolve their differences, NOT a tool for the population at large to pillage each other.

[tttppp]

The Federal government was "meant" to be a tool for the States to resolve their differences, NOT a tool for the population at large to pillage each other.

So you want to replace it with a few voters from swing states to tell everyone else what to do? How is that better?

[tttppp]

Democracy has failed everywhere in the world since ancient Greece up to today. The reason is simple - the people break into factions and vote themselves benefits at each other's expense. And the whole thing collapses. The Founders tried to prevent that by LIMITING the powers avaialble to democratic action. Much of the Bill of Rights is directly ANTI-democratic - limiting what a democratic majority could do. Still, we have slipped into the death spiral of democracy.

We are basically at that point. The country is controlled by different groups who each bribe the government for benefits. I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic though. Nobody has adequately explained why I have more rights with an electoral college.

[Elwar]

We are basically at that point. The country is controlled by different groups who each bribe the government for benefits. I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic though. Nobody has adequately explained why I have more rights with an electoral college.

The electoral college was supposed to be a way to represent each state in the very important duty of voting. Originally only land owners over 21 were meant to be voters. But that is decided by each state.

The more equal each state is in deciding things at the federal level makes it so that New York and California are not the new America. New Yorkers could decide that Wyoming is now just a place where all garbage should go and that anyone in the south should now be slaves and those states would have no power to stop them.

[tttppp]

The electoral college was supposed to be a way to represent each state in the very important duty of voting. Originally only land owners over 21 were meant to be voters. But that is decided by each state.

The more equal each state is in deciding things at the federal level makes it so that New York and California are not the new America. New Yorkers could decide that Wyoming is now just a place where all garbage should go and that anyone in the south should now be slaves and those states would have no power to stop them.

That's a better argument. However, even in that scenario the federal government is not allowed, in theory, to violate the rights of individuals. So they can't just turn someones home into a toxic dump. And they can't designate certain people slaves since you can't give special rights to certain people then no give others those same rights. All of this is in theory though. The government is not held accountable and therefore can do anything they want.

[farreri]

New York and Los Angeles would dictate.
Well the presidential election is already decided before polls in the pacific time zone states (California, Oregon, Washington, etc) are even closed, so the electoral college system seems to be biased against the western states.

[ShaneEnochs]

It's terrifying how many people in this thread would like to see a democracy.

[Vanilluxe]

Fred Thompson actually has a good point for a national popular vote considering he was a strong states rights guy. Anyways, don't you think that third parties would have a bigger voice with a national popular vote instead of the electoral college types which only favors the two parties and go nowhere?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbAD6XI2BxE

[youngbuck]

And I call for an end to Al Gore calling for things.

[oyarde]

Fuck fat Al , I call for the end of govt driven green taxes , restrictions , regulations and Al himself , next time I see that evil , lying bastard , he should be the property of Sherrif Joe .

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I call for an end to it all! Viva la micro-secession! :p

[Keith and stuff]

Well the presidential election is already decided before polls in the pacific time zone states (California, Oregon, Washington, etc) are even closed, so the electoral college system seems to be biased against the western states.

Maybe you don't understand how voting works in OR and WA?

Here is how it works in WA. https://wei.sos.wa.gov/agency/osos/en/voters/Pages/vote_by_mail.aspx

[Pauls' Revere]

There's a big movement in the left, and the moderate right, to do just this. It as good as gone, I think. Once the left gets an idea they don't stop until their done.

Google "National Popular Vote" initiative to see how far they already are.

Isn't Americans Elect heading in that direction? That too creeps me out.
http://www.americanselect.org/

But you are spot on! only the major population centers will matter. Here are the top 10.
http://exploredia.com/10-most-populated-cities-in-the-u-s-2012/

[twomp]

It's a real bad move for the Democrats, at least this year.

It's a virtual tie with the popular vote, but a huge lead with the Electoral College.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/author/nate-silver/

LOL if Romney wins the popular vote but loses by Electoral College, you will have the republicans calling for a national vote.

[Occam's Banana]

Anyways, don't you think that third parties would have a bigger voice with a national popular vote instead of the electoral college types which only favors the two parties and go nowhere?

Are you kidding? After the scare Ron Paul has thrown into the Republicrats?

You can safely bet that any "national popular vote" scheme concocted by the establishment will be carefully & deliberately engineered to prevent 3rd parties from getting jack-shit.

[F3d]

Having or not having the electoral college won't make that much of a difference.

It's annoying that none of them advocate real change like range voting instead of plurality voting.

[Occam's Banana]

It's annoying that none of them advocate real change like range voting instead of plurality voting.

Plurality voting is something that will *never* change - not until one of the two major parties is entirely replaced by a new party with a shred of integrity.

Or until the whole rotten system collapses and a whole new Constitution is written.

[kathy88]

As long as uninformed voters vote the whole system is fucked. What do we propose to do about that?

[FrankRep]

He wants presidential races to be decided by the popular vote.


http://share-as-image.s3.amazonaws.com/quotes/webservice/06-05-12/democracy-is-the-road-to-socialism-5.png

[rpwi]

Actually getting rid of the electoral college is a very good idea. It's purpose was to facilitate an efficient runoff system, but given the duopoly of democrats and republicans it no longer has that function. If we are not choosing delegates for their political wisdom but to rubber-stamp general election results, than why do we need them?

In fact, while the electoral college is designed to facilitate a smooth runoff system it does the opposite because it discourages third party candidates based on the winner-take all system at the state level (with a few exceptions).

The best system would be to go to a popular vote, but NOT to allow a candidate to win if he doesn't get 50% of the vote. If no candidate gets 50% of the vote, there is a popular runoff between the top candidates. This way, a voter can vote their conscious (third party) the first round, and then vote the lessor of two evils (major party candidate second round).

This makes so much sense it is not even funny...

[rpwi]

http://share-as-image.s3.amazonaws.com/quotes/webservice/06-05-12/democracy-is-the-road-to-socialism-5.pngYes...democracy for everything leads to mob rule...or two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for breakfast.

The problem is if democracy is so bad...do we let a minority run the government instead? If there is one wolf and two sheep, do we let the wolf decide what is for lunch?

It is a big flawed system regardless...but the best solution is to not marginalize the public and hope the public respects the individual.

If we create mechanisms by which a system will be safe guarded from the public fleecing the individual, this will inevitably be manipulated to do the opposite.

[MelissaWV]

As far as being shocked how many in this thread are for direct democracy, I hope you don't include me in that. I think it is the easiest system to cheat. Who is going to really check on every vote in, say, NYC? What's a few thousand extra here or there? It already happens, but the stakes are higher when it's just a direct vote.

Ideally it would be as rpwi stated, and I did like the old-fashioned way of choosing the runner-up as VP, but my main hope would be that the President would go back to being more of a figurehead and cheerleader than a real legislative force. Executive Order, anyone?

I would also want to see more localities bucking the system and self-funding some projects. That will take some creativity. A school outside of the DOE? A road funded and self-maintained? Privately-owned trams or bus routes? All very difficult projects with little hope for reward, yet they have to happen if we're ever going to even approach freedom. I wish politicians would have to justify their projects to us and raise the money from the community (including businesses) rather than just going to DC and nabbing the money we've already been robbed of, to continue with their plans whether or not we agree with them.

[rpwi]

As far as being shocked how many in this thread are for direct democracy, I hope you don't include me in that. I think it is the easiest system to cheat. Who is going to really check on every vote in, say, NYC? What's a few thousand extra here or there? It already happens, but the stakes are higher when it's just a direct vote. I would argue the opposite. It is far easier for vote riggers to have their way if they just have to rig say some key municipalities in a swing state (like Florida) instead of rigging aggregate votes. This is because with the electoral vote, one person doesn't equal one vote...and there exist super powerful voting pockets which are far more susceptible to fraud.

[Ender]

Fred Thompson actually has a good point for a national popular vote considering he was a strong states rights guy. Anyways, don't you think that third parties would have a bigger voice with a national popular vote instead of the electoral college types which only favors the two parties and go nowhere?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbAD6XI2BxE

It is the corrupt 2 party system, which has taken over elections, that needs to be changed- NOT the Electoral College.

A democracy is 2 wolves and 1 lamb deciding what's for dinner; A constitutional republic is 2 wolves and 1 lamb deciding what's for dinner- but lamb's not on the menu.

So in a democracy YOU can be menu at anytime.

Not smart.

[emazur]

What do you think about eliminating the electoral college people but keeping the electoral votes from each state? In other words, you win the popular vote in Alabama, you automatically get it's 9 electoral votes.

Libertarians once benefited from the electoral college people (or person in this case) - in 1972, a faithless elector for the Republican Nixon gave his electoral vote to Hospers\Nathan instead (Nathan became the first woman and first Jew in American history to receive an electoral vote). But that can backfire too - imagine how you'd react if Ron Paul won a state but the Republican and/or Democrat establishment controlled the electoral voters of that state and refused to give him his electoral votes. Sound familiar?

[rpwi]

It is the corrupt 2 party system, which has taken over elections, that needs to be changed- NOT the Electoral College.

A democracy is 2 wolves and 1 lamb deciding what's for dinner; A constitutional republic is 2 wolves and 1 lamb deciding what's for dinner- but lamb's not on the menu.

So in a democracy YOU can be menu at anytime.

Not smart.But with a constitutional republic, the Constitution is only as good as the judges who protect it. The judges are nominated by the president and the president is chosen by the parties and the parties are somewhat influenced the the ignorant public and the media. So in essence, a constitutional republic merely provides an illusion of protection.

True reform will not come at a system level...but on a public awareness level. I believe this is what Thomas Jefferson ultimately realized later in life. It doesn't matter what type of legal protections you have against the abuse of power...as long as the public is ignorant, power will be abused regardless.

[rpwi]

What do you think about eliminating the electoral college people but keeping the electoral votes from each state? In other words, you win the popular vote in Alabama, you automatically get it's 9 electoral votes.Better but still flawed because it is winner-take-all...just at a state level.

If in a state, Romney wins 35% of the vote to Ron Paul's 34% and Obama's 31%, then why should Romney deserve ALL the state's delegates? What if all the Obama voters REALLY hate Romney and would in a honest runoff clearly prefer Ron over Romney? Would that be fair?

[Ender]

But with a constitutional republic, the Constitution is only as good as the judges who protect it. The judges are nominated by the president and the president is chosen by the parties and the parties are somewhat influenced the the ignorant public and the media. So in essence, a constitutional republic merely provides an illusion of protection.

True reform will not come at a system level...but on a public awareness level. I believe this is what Thomas Jefferson ultimately realized later in life. It doesn't matter what type of legal protections you have against the abuse of power...as long as the public is ignorant, power will be abused regardless.

I am mostly in agreement, although it is up to Congress to protect the Constitution, as well as the SC, as well as you and I and every other average Joe. The Constitution has weaknesses; however-

Letting the same uninformed ignorant public operate as a democracy means that everyone is immediately at the whim of whatever is popular at the time.

[MelissaWV]

I would argue the opposite. It is far easier for vote riggers to have their way if they just have to rig say some key municipalities in a swing state (like Florida) instead of rigging aggregate votes. This is because with the electoral vote, one person doesn't equal one vote...and there exist super powerful voting pockets which are far more susceptible to fraud.

In aggregate votes, those key municipalities have a far greater national impact.

I am not ambitious enough to find my old math on this, so I'll just let it lie; it can be (and has been) argued either way, depending on which area we are looking at.

I am also interested in variations within the electoral college method:


Nebraska distributes its electoral votes proportionally, with two at-large electors representing the statewide winning presidential and vice presidential candidates and one elector each representing the winners from its three Congressional districts. For the first time since adopting this system, Nebraska's five electoral votes were split between the two major party tickets (in2008). The McCain-Palin ticket won Nebraska overall and received the two at-large electors, as well as the electors from the First and Third Congressional Districts, where McCain-Palin also won. However, the Obama-Biden ticket won the Second Congressional District and, thus, received its one elector.

This is similar to what you said a few posts later. This would also resolve, to my satisfaction, problems with states like Florida and California and New York, where there are huge differences in the politics of one region and another.

[tommyrp12]

nevermind i found my answer.

[Iptay]

The general masses of people are too uneducated for this to work.