Bush wins Electoral Vote, Kerry Wins Popular Vote: What the hell will happen?

[Rdskns2000]

Odds are we could see a repeat of 2000- Bush wins the electoral vote and Kerry wins the popular.

If that happens; what the hell will happen? You know the democrats will be enraged. I could see protests everywhere. Riots ala the 60's.


Maybe this brings about a new admendment that gets rid of the electoral college or modifies it so that the electoral votes are allocated by congressional district instead of winner takes in 48 of the 50 states.


Maybe a civil war? Red States vs. Blue States? Hmmmm

[luckydevil]

Sure, what the hell

A constitutional crisis in this country just might be a good thing.

Maybe once again people will respect private property, free association, states rights, limiting the size of the federal government.........frankly liberty in general.

[Sea Bass]

Michael Moore will make another "documentary."

[Painkiller]

If Bush wins the electorate, and Kerry wins the popular (which I highly doubt at this point, see latest polls, he's losing ground quicker then you can say "flip flop") I'm sure there will be mass protests. Even though that accomplishes nothing. Whatever happened to losing with dignity? :D

[Skinsfan1966]

If Bush wins the electoral vote and Kerry wins the popular vote then Bush will be president. Its pretty simple really.

[SEF]

A better question is what would happen if the opposite occured.

[Thiebear]

Originally posted by LC80
A better question is what would happen if the opposite occured.

Then Kerry would be President!

Well until the Supreme Court gave it to Bush: Sorry I couldnt help it... its so silly to say but it feels so good...

[Phat Hog]

Originally posted by Skinsfan1966
If Bush wins the electoral vote and Kerry wins the popular vote then Bush will be president. Its pretty simple really.


Yup!

[Chopper Dave]

For all of you who say "Bush will be president" or take a jab at Moore with a cheery little smile, you really don't care that our election system would be proving itself to be a joke? Whomever you want to win, fine, but if this were to happen again, then the election process would be making a mockery of itself. That's bad no matter what side you're on.

[Thiebear]

Originally posted by Chopper Dave
For all of you who say "Bush will be president" or take a jab at Moore with a cheery little smile, you really don't care that our election system would be proving itself to be a joke? Whomever you want to win, fine, but if this were to happen again, then the election process would be making a mockery of itself. That's bad no matter what side you're on.

Tell us why? When did the popular vote take over?
Why was the Electoral vote the final rule?
Why did you make this statement?

[Tarhog]

Originally posted by Chopper Dave
For all of you who say "Bush will be president" or take a jab at Moore with a cheery little smile, you really don't care that our election system would be proving itself to be a joke? Whomever you want to win, fine, but if this were to happen again, then the election process would be making a mockery of itself. That's bad no matter what side you're on.

You can only say it would be making a 'mockery of itself' if you make the faulty assumption that the system should elect the man with the most votes. Thats not what our constitution dictates.

You can argue vigorously that the system should be changed. But both candidates know (and have always known) going in that he/she who gets the most electoral votes wins. Its silly to pretend otherwise.

I certainly agree that its not good for the country when an election is so close one can garner sufficient electoral votes and win while your opponent actually wins the popular vote. But, honestly, it doesn't make that President any less 'legitimate' unless you live in some fantasy world where your 'new and improved' constitution reigns.

If Kerry wins the electoral college race, but has fewer popular votes, HE will be the next President.

[Chopper Dave]

Originally posted by Tarhog


You can only say it would be making a 'mockery of itself' if you make the faulty assumption that the system should elect the man with the most votes. Thats not what our constitution dictates.

You can argue vigorously that the system should be changed. But both candidates know (and have always known) going in that he/she who gets the most electoral votes wins. Its silly to pretend otherwise.

I certainly agree that its not good for the country when an election is so close one can garner sufficient electoral votes and win while your opponent actually wins the popular vote. But, honestly, it doesn't make that President any less 'legitimate' unless you live in some fantasy world where your 'new and improved' constitution reigns.

If Kerry wins the electoral college race, but has fewer popular votes, HE will be the next President.

They'd be legit; it doesn't make it right. If a candidate is viable, which even the most diehard liberals/conservatives have to agree Bush and Kerry are, and they get the most votes, they should win. Whether that's what the Constitution says or not, that's the way common sense dictates it should be.

So maybe we need to look into changing the system, because like you said, an election where one person wins the electoral votes and the other the popular votes is not good for the country.

[twa]

I for one support the present system,it is a needed safeguard to the orderly transfer of power.:2cents:

[Chopper Dave]

Originally posted by twa
I for one support the present system,it is a needed safeguard to the orderly transfer of power.:2cents:

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but I think any system that can defy the will of the people, ESPECIALLY when its a system designed to represent the will of the people, is ineffective.

[twa]

Originally posted by Chopper Dave


Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but I think any system that can defy the will of the people, ESPECIALLY when its a system designed to represent the will of the people, is ineffective. Can you tell me how this would defy the will of the people,when the people of each state elect the president by their vote?

[Chopper Dave]

Originally posted by twa
Can you tell me how this would defy the will of the people,when the people of each state elect the president by their vote?

What are you talking about? That's the whole point; if the person who doesn't win the popular vote wins the election, then the will of the people as a whole isn't being adhered to.

The only way for there to be an electoral college AND for the system to still make sense is if electoral votes were split to be representative of the popular vote in each state.

For example, take two states that have the same amount of electoral votes. I don't know any off the top of my head, so for the sake of discussion, let's say Texas and Pennsylvania have 20 each. They don't, but let's just pretend they do. Obviously Bush is going to get most of the votes in TX, say 75%. Let's say Kerry wins PA with 51% of the votes. Wouldn't you say it's unfair for Kerry and Bush to both get 20 votes?

You can justify it by simply saying "It's the system," but all that means is the system is wrong. Back when the people of America would have elected a farm animal or some dude with a curly mustache claiming to be able make gold from cow feces, this precautionary system made sense. Now it's just an antiquated source of trouble.

[twa]

As a republic the states select the president based on the vote of their citizens.If we depended on a actual democratic vote the result of a close election[say a few thousand votes] would paralize and divide the country. IE. the Florida recount mess multiplied by a thousand. the system today ensures a orderly transfer of power.

[Chopper Dave]

You're assumption that a straight democratic system would "paralyze" us isn't true, and there's no logical reason to assume it's true.

[twa]

Do you believe that the task of a nationwide recount in the event of a close election would go smoothly and not be contested?

[Chopper Dave]

What are you going on about? I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the process, just the way the electoral college works. Why would we suddenly need a nationwide recount just because the electoral college is different or done away with?

[THE HAMMER'IN HOG]

Originally posted by Chopper Dave
You're assumption that a straight democratic system would "paralyze" us isn't true, and there's no logical reason to assume it's true.

Burr vs Jefferson, it ended in a tie, so to ensure this never happened again, we went to electorial format, reason? The caos involved with decieding who should be president, was everything and more than what we saw in florida, The system has worked to help make us the greatest nation in the world, changing it sound's like sour grapes from the, LOOOOOOOOOOSER'S!

[twa]

I will type slower for you. In a close election[remember florida's last presidential election] the results are automaticly recounted.There are challenges to whether the votes were counted correctly.The Florida results are still disputed today,Despite independent review.I realise you are young ,but surely you have heard of that.

[Chopper Dave]

OK, well since you decided to be a snide assh*le, let me show you what the product of the Florida public school system is like.

You clearly don't understand logic, and that's at best, because frankly, it seems like you just don't understand words in general.

You fail to explain why in the holy hell the entire goddamned country would need to be recounted just because it was a close election. 2000 was close; only Florida was recounted (at least, supposed to be recounted). I'm not calling for a complete change of the system, far from it actually. I'm just saying that the electoral votes should be split or done away with. If a state is close, recount that state.

Learn to read before you criticize others. This was a discussion, but if you want to be a prick, well, I'm shut in with the hurricane bearing down, so I've got nothing better to do than get into a spat with you. Don't be a dick, because I can be a bigger one.

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by Chopper Dave


Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but I think any system that can defy the will of the people, ESPECIALLY when its a system designed to represent the will of the people, is ineffective.
I have tried my best to convince them otherwise, but it is just not going to happen. So just a warning that if you take this debate any further you will waste a lot of your time.

Soon they are going to call you a high school drop out for ever dreaming of doubting our flawless system! :laugh:

[Chopper Dave]

Thanks Lib, I think I'm done with this guy unless he wants to play the part of instigator. I've got cabin fever and I'm ready to chew him to pieces if he starts with me.

[Park City Skins]

No. You can't. And neither will anyone try to compete for that particular "championship". The bigger....... one. Nor any chewing up if it means name calling and such. Or have you all so quickly forgotten what's been happening recently here in Tailgate, ( and a little in FedEx), in regards to just such circumstances. Now, I may not be a mod, but rest assured I've been around long enough and often enough to tell you guys to relax. Chill out right now before a mod does notice and things get worse................. for you all. Get my point? And no, I don't care who started it. A shot was fired and then returned. That'll be enough don't ya think? Okay. We're talking electoral vs popular and so forth. What say we tone it down some and try this in better way.

[Chopper Dave]

Good point PCS, I'm not thinking straight. Almost 2 days without seeing daylight has messed with my head. I'm done with him; he has no idea what he's talking about.

[twa]

Originally posted by Chopper Dave
OK, well since you decided to be a snide assh*le, let me show you what the product of the Florida public school system is like.

You clearly don't understand logic, and that's at best, because frankly, it seems like you just don't understand words in general.

You fail to explain why in the holy hell the entire goddamned country would need to be recounted just because it was a close election. 2000 was close; only Florida was recounted (at least, supposed to be recounted). I'm not calling for a complete change of the system, far from it actually. I'm just saying that the electoral votes should be split or done away with. If a state is close, recount that state.

Learn to read before you criticize others. This was a discussion, but if you want to be a prick, well, I'm shut in with the hurricane bearing down, so I've got nothing better to do than get into a spat with you. Don't be a dick, because I can be a bigger one. Sorry you feel that way . Hope you stay safe. I must have misunderstood you ,I thought you were calling for a straight majority vote nationwide.

[SkinsHokie Fan]

The electoral system works and has worked, period.

I see the argument of going to a straight vote system but I agree with most that suddenly it will either regionalize politics or nobody would ever go to North Dakota again.

Certain states would become completely irrelevant and as long as you hit California, New York and Texas hard you'd be a winner.

Bush in 2000 would have simply run up the score in Texas where he could have easily incresed his margin of victory (I believe he had 66 percent of the vote there, if he runs it up to 76 he closes that 500k gap)

However realizing he had Texas in the bag he sold his ideas elsewhere. Likewise a Democrat candidate would run up the score in NYC and LA and ignore any issues with the midwest and south.

Originally the EC was meant to prevent mob rule and the "mobocracy" that horrified the founding fathers during the whiskey rebellion in 1786. They feared the mob and rule of mob greatly and thats why the indirect system was set up.

Now it functions as a way of forcing candidates to sell themselves to a wide array and very diverse people aka the American people.

[Chopper Dave]

Oh... well no. Sorry I jumped on you. Thanks for the wishes. For the record, you're not a dick, prick, or assh*le. I'm just overtired and going crazy.

[twa]

I understand, I have been through a few hurricanes myself.:cheers:

[Stu]

Here's little info on the whole topic. Note this argument came up when the election process was being determined for the first time. I just think the Founder's concerns are still relevant and the Electoral College shoue be retained.

Note the Electoral College was present with the start of the Constitution. The Jefferson/Burr incident only changed how the voting for President and Vice President were done.
__________________________


Constitutional Topic: The Electoral College
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_elec.html
The Constitutional Topics pages at the USConstitution.net site are presented to delve deeper into topics than can be provided on the Glossary Page or in the FAQ pages. This Topic Page concerns the Electoral College. The Electoral College is embodied in the Constitution in Article 2, Section 1, and in the 12th Amendment.

The Framers were wary of giving the people the power to directly elect the President - some felt the citizenry too beholden to local interests, too easily duped by promises or shenanigans, or simply because a national election, in the time of oil lamps and quill pens, was just impractical. Some proposals gave the power to the Congress, but this did not sit well with those who wanted to see true separation of the branches of the new government. Still others felt the state legislatures should decide, but this was thought to make the President too beholden to state interests. The Electoral College, proposed by James Wilson, was the compromise that the Constitutional Convention reached.

Though the term is never used in the Constitution itself, the electors that choose the President at each election are traditionally called a College. In the context of the Constitution, the meaning of college is not that of a school, but of a group of people organized toward a common goal.

The Electoral College insulates the election of the President from the people by having the people elect not the person of the President, but the person of an Elector who is pledged to vote for a specific person for President. Though the ballot may read "George Bush" or "Al Gore," you're really voting for "John Smith" who is a Bush supporter or "Jack Jones" who is a Gore supporter.

The function and details of how the Electoral College meets and how they vote was changed in the 12th Amendment. First, a discussion of the original plan, outlined in Article 2, Section 2, Clauses 2 and 3, then what is different today:

Each state chose a number of electors equal to the number of congress people that state had. Each state, then, got at least three electors (two Senators and at least one Representative). Electors may not be an employee or elected representative of the Federal Government. Each state was allowed to otherwise choose whomever they wish to be the Electors for that state.

Today, Electors are chosen by popular election, but the Constitution does not mandate a popular election. The 14th Amendment does mention the choosing of Electors, but is relevant only when Electors are elected by popular vote. There is similar mention in the 24th Amendment. In other words, Electors could be appointed by a state's legislature, or the legislature could empower the governor to choose electors. In some cases, state law allows for such appointments if the popular vote cannot be used to determine a winner, such as if election results are contested up to federally-mandated deadlines.

Regardless of the method used to choose Electors, they all met, in their states, on one day set by law. Each voted for two people, at least one of whom was not a citizen of their state. Those votes were then counted, and a list of each name and the number of votes was signed and certified and sent to the President of the Senate. Then, in front of a joint session of Congress, the President of the Senate opened the vote counts from each state. These were totaled, and the President was the person with the most votes, if the count is a majority. If there was a tie, then the members of the House of Representatives immediately took a vote and that winner was the President.

If there was no tie, and no majority, then the top five vote-getters were voted on by the House as above.

When the vote devolved to the House, two-thirds of all states must have had at least one Representative present for the vote to proceed. The Representatives present from each state voted as a single state. The winner had to win by a majority of the states.

The Vice-President was a bit easier. In any case, that person who had the second highest number of Electoral votes was Vice-President (if there was a tie, the winner of the House vote was President; the loser was Vice-President). If the second-highest vote count was shared by two or more people, the Senate chose between those people.

Pretty complicated, right? The Framers thought for sure that they had covered all their bases. But they did not foresee certain things, the most important of which is the formation of political parties. For example, say each state votes Republican, and every elector votes for George Bush for President and Dick Cheney for Vice-President. When the votes are counted, Bush and Cheney will have equal votes, throwing the election into the House, regardless of the fact that the will of the Electors is, or should be, clear. Once in the House, anything can happen.

Not plausible, you might think, but precisely this happened in the 1800 election of the Jefferson/Burr ticket. The ticket had the highest number of Electoral votes, and because their electors wrote both Jefferson and Burr on their ballots, there was a tie. The House was thrown into a fit, and it took 36 votes to finally elect Jefferson as President.

The 12th Amendment was ratified four years later to avert any recurrence of these events. The 12th changes the Electoral process in a few small, but important ways.

First, instead of voting for two people, Electors vote for a President and a Vice-President. From there, the names are totaled at the state level, in two columns this time (one for the President and one for the Vice President), and sent along to the President of the Senate. Then, in joint session, all votes are opened and counted, again in two columns. The person with the majority of votes for President is then President. If there is no majority, then the top three vote-getters are voted on by the House (with the same restrictions as before). The choice must be made by January 20th (originally March 4th in the 12th Amendment, but altered by the 20th Amendment), or the Vice President becomes the Acting President, until such time as the House can finally agree.

The choice for Vice President moves along similarly, with the majority vote getter becoming VP. If there is no majority, the top two vote-getters are voted on by the Senate. In the case of the Senate, the Senators are not grouped by state, though there must still be a two-thirds quorum to take the vote. Also note that because only the top two vote-getters are placed in the mix, the choice for Vice President should be an easier one. Also note that in the case of a tie, the current Vice President, as President of the Senate, may cast a vote for himself (if the current Vice President is running for re-election).

Today, the day of choosing the electors is set at the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, and the date the Electors meet is set at the first Monday following the second Wednesday in December - in 2000, these dates are November 7 and December 18. These dates are set in the US Code, at 3 USC 7.

In most states, the winner of the state election gets all of the state's electoral votes. In two states, Maine and Nebraska, however, the winner of the state only gets two votes, one representing each Senator. The other electoral votes are distributed according to the winner of each congressional district in the state.

That's the process. Electors are chosen by the states and the Electors elect the President and Vice-President.

But, of course, there is much more to it than that, when the inconvenience of details slip in. But that's another topic.

The election of 2000, as did several elections before it, called the wisdom of the Electoral College system into question. Will there be changes to this uniquely American institution? The answer to that question remains to be seen.

William Kimberling, Deputy Director of the Federal Election Commission, wrote a very interesting treatise on the Electoral College, that includes lots of great historical information and anecdotes about the College. The document can be found on the FEC's web site in Adobe Acrobat format.

[FullbackIsKey]

I think everybody needs to pick up their history books again...

The electoral college used to be an actual group of people from each state. They would meet at the state capital, one man per electoral vote. After the general vote concluded, it was used as a guideline to tell the electors which way the people in their state were leaning in the election. The electors were very highly regarded people from within the state, perhaps retired congressmen or scholars, and their purpose was to make sure that the outcome of the vote didn't actually rest on the general public, who were not then, and are not now, known for their general intelligence. It was basically to prevent a bad man who's good at rallying people to come into power, sort of like a hitler. But after years and years of the electors almost always agreeing with, and voting according to what the people of the state voted for, the system was updated and the electors fired and turned into the point system we use today. The difference is that back then, maybe a few of the electors from a state would have cast votes for the losing candidate if the race within the state was a close one, but now the man who wins by any margin at all gets all of the state's votes.

[Arioch]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rdskns2000
"Odds are we could see a repeat of 2000- Bush wins the electoral vote and Kerry wins the popular.

If that happens; what the hell will happen? You know the democrats will be enraged. I could see protests everywhere. Riots ala the 60's.


Maybe this brings about a new admendment that gets rid of the electoral college or modifies it so that the electoral votes are allocated by congressional district instead of winner takes in 48 of the 50 states.


Maybe a civil war? Red States vs. Blue States? Hmmmm "

Oh BS, Bush wins Electoral vote=game over

[FullbackIsKey]

ok, so Stu's post is a little bit more conctrete, but i was pulling off stuff i learned in high school, so sue me.

[FullbackIsKey]

i think i recalled failry well

[Arioch]

Originally posted by Chopper Dave
For all of you who say "Bush will be president" or take a jab at Moore with a cheery little smile, you really don't care that our election system would be proving itself to be a joke? Whomever you want to win, fine, but if this were to happen again, then the election process would be making a mockery of itself. That's bad no matter what side you're on.

stay in school and learn something....then come back when you have something intelligent to add.

[Arioch]

Originally posted by Chopper Dave


Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but I think any system that can defy the will of the people, ESPECIALLY when its a system designed to represent the will of the people, is ineffective.

you mean when it defies YOUR will

[FullbackIsKey]

he's a citizen is he not, should his will be imposed upon any more or less because its different from yours?

[Chopper Dave]

Hey, Anioch, I have a better idea. Why don't you actually talk about something, anything, in your posts, or come back when you can contribute something meaningful. Telling me to "stay in school and learn something" just shows you have nothing. Zilch. You have no point.

And for the record, when more than 50% of the people in a country vote for someone, it's THEIR COLLECTIVE WILL. Not mine. If it were to happen the other way around, I'd be happy Kerry won, but it still wouldn't be fair.

[Park City Skins]

Originally posted by Arioch


stay in school and learn something....then come back when you have something intelligent to add.


Arioch, We managed to get this thing back on an even and civil keel, and comments like that can put this thing right back to where it was. What say we knock that kind of stuff off okay? Does nothing for the spirit of civil debate, ( and lord knows this subject is ripe for that). This is just the kind of statement that starts things and we're really trying to avoid that in Tailgate these days.

[Arioch]

Originally posted by Liberty

I have tried my best to convince them otherwise, but it is just not going to happen. So just a warning that if you take this debate any further you will waste a lot of your time.

Soon they are going to call you a high school drop out for ever dreaming of doubting our flawless system! :laugh:

The sad truth is neither one of you have any idea what you're talking about. Instead of offering a logical argument or legitimate, potential solution to the electoral college, you're allowing yourself to get rattled and emotional...then blurt out personal insults and irrational, emotinal comments (yes, the reactions of youth and inexperience). This issue has been debated for over 200 years (200 more than either of you have been alive), please don't think this is a new argument or dilemma. The founders thought this one out, argued about it amongst themselves, and came up with this present system. There is a reason we haven't been able to come up with a better system within our Federal republic. That's the key, we are NOT a true Democracy. We are a Federal Republic (as is France). Pick up your books and read about the difference between the different democratic systems.

[Park City Skins]

Something like that will work.

[Arioch]

Originally posted by Park City Skins



Arioch, We managed to get this thing back on an even and civil keel, and comments like that can put this thing right back to where it was. What say we knock that kind of stuff off okay? Does nothing for the spirit of civil debate, ( and lord knows this subject is ripe for that). This is just the kind of statement that starts things and we're really trying to avoid that in Tailgate these days.

I call it as I see it. It's a straight forward statement with no personal attacks

[Chopper Dave]

Originally posted by Arioch


The sad truth is neither one of you have any idea what you're talking about. Instead of offering a logical argument or legitimate, potential solution to the electoral college, you're allowing yourself to get rattled and emotional...then blurt out personal insults and irrational, emotinal comments (yes, the reactions of youth and inexperience). This issue has been debated for over 200 years (200 more than either of you have been alive), please don't think this is a new argument or dilemma. The founders thought this one out, argued about it amongst themselves, and came up with this present system. There is a reason we haven't been able to come up with a better system within our Federal republic. That's the key, we are NOT a true Democracy. We are a Federal Republic (as is France). Pick up your books and read about the difference between the different democratic systems.


Whoa. Seriously, I think this post should win the award for "Did-Someone-Just-Chloroform-This-Guy-and-Take-Over-His-Computer? Because-This-Post-Makes-Absolutely-No-Sense-Especially-In-Relation-to-His-First-Posts, Good-God-What-the-Hell-are-You-Talking-About?" Post of the Year.


Where did you present any logical whatsoever? When you said Bush winning the electoral vote=game over? What does that mean?

More importantly, I think about 2/3 of my posts in this thread give a potential solution.

And most importantly of all, why in the name of God did you mention France?

[Park City Skins]

No. And I'm not going to argue the point any further than this. I call them like I see them. That was a diliberate, condencending remark and you know it was. And as a result it was personal. What you said implies you were qustioning his intelligence or at least the intelligence of his posts. And that simply put is personal and inflammatory. And that ain't happening in Tailgate anymore.

[Chopper Dave]

Originally posted by Arioch


I call it as I see it. It's a straight forward statement with no personal attacks

Call what? You haven't called anything. I can't believe what I'm hearing. In the Tailgate, I've debated, I've joked, I've gotten really pissed off and participated in flaming wars, but never, ever, have I been dumbfounded beyond words.

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!?!?!?

[Arioch]

Originally posted by Chopper Dave



Whoa. Seriously, I think this post should win the award for "Did-Someone-Just-Chloroform-This-Guy-and-Take-Over-His-Computer? Because-This-Post-Makes-Absolutely-No-Sense-Especially-In-Relation-to-His-First-Posts, Good-God-What-the-Hell-are-You-Talking-About?" Post of the Year.


Where did you present any logical whatsoever? When you said Bush winning the electoral vote=game over? What does that mean?

More importantly, I think about 2/3 of my posts in this thread give a potential solution.

And most importantly of all, why in the name of God did you mention France?

As I mentioned before, you don't know what you're talking about and getting worked up with others who do know about this topic. Yes, If Bush (or Kerry) win the Electoral vote the election is over, period. And, no you have not presented any viable unemotional solutions or alternatives to the Electoral college question. What you have added are emotional, un-thought out rants that really are thinly veiled attacks, because you can't argue your way out of the paper bag you've managed to corner yourself into.

Again, if you had read up on this subject, you would know where and why France was mentioned in this topic.

[Chopper Dave]

We're debating two different things. I know how the electoral college works. I'm saying that it SHOULD work differently, because, clearly, your infinite wisdom includes the knowledge that the Constitution can be amended.

Reading tends to further the debate process. Do it, you might not seem insane. I stated many times throughout this thread that an effective, easy alternative is to either allow the splitting of electoral votes, or eliminating the electoral college altogether while leaving the state-by-state voting system the same. But in your fervor to paint me as a ranting ball of emotion, you seemed to miss this.

I haven't attacked anyone (until now, and maybe a little before with twa, but I held back), unlike you, and it's laughable that you criticize my argumentative skills without even knowing what the argument is about.

Again, if you had read up on the debate, maybe you wouldn't sound like a rambling fool. And BTW, I know the similarities between France and our election systems. It has nothing to do with this debate, but believe it or not, I do see the parallel.

[Chopper Dave]

Anyway, to discuss the actual subject, what do you all think are the pros of the electoral college? I don't really see any reason for it to exist other than to keep campaigning fair, like SHF said. That could be addressed too, though.

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by Chopper Dave
We're debating two different things. I know how the electoral college works. I'm saying that it SHOULD work differently, because, clearly, your infinite wisdom includes the knowledge that the Constitution can be amended.

Reading tends to further the debate process. Do it, you might not seem insane. I stated many times throughout this thread that an effective, easy alternative is to either allow the splitting of electoral votes, or eliminating the electoral college altogether while leaving the state-by-state voting system the same. But in your fervor to paint me as a ranting ball of emotion, you seemed to miss this.

I haven't attacked anyone (until now, and maybe a little before with twa, but I held back), unlike you, and it's laughable that you criticize my argumentative skills without even knowing what the argument is about.

Again, if you had read up on the debate, maybe you wouldn't sound like a rambling fool. And BTW, I know the similarities between France and our election systems. It has nothing to do with this debate, but believe it or not, I do see the parallel.



Hey, CD.

Man, please don't take this as a bash on you at all. I wanted to jump in and try to convince you to refrain a bit. I'm very sorry to tell you this, but Arioch is exactly correct and you are going a little over the top on an invalid argument. Seriously, I'm not trying to stir things up, but I feel bad for you pursuing the topic off target.:2cents:

[Tarhog]

Look. There are certainly arguments you can make for getting rid of the electoral college. I don't happen to be swayed by them, but there are decent arguments.

So make them.

Or don't.

But there's no reason, for anyone, to get their panties in a wad over it. Seriously. Is that the peak of geekdom to get in a pissing match over a discussion over the validity of the electoral college system? Confessing to that particular sin might well result in one never getting laid again.

Discuss away fellas, but please lets try and keep it civil. Best advice I can give, when you get all hot and bothered on a topic, just walk away for awhile. It happens to the best of us. Just take a break, and the electoral college won't seem so important in the morning. I promise ;)

[Chopper Dave]

SnV, you and Anioch are the only ones who are off target. Anioch apparently thinks that I think that if Bush wins the electoral college, then he still doesn't win. Or that's at least what his arguments would suggest.

If this is truly you trying to "convince me to refrain," well, thanks but no thanks. Anioch is slinging attacks, and I'm holding back, trying to maintain a semblance of discussion.

Truthfully though, I think I see what you're really doing, and if it's what I think it is, I don't like it. I know you don't like me, we've been through this before, and you're just siding with Anioch to make me look like the bad guy.

If that's not the case, I apologize, so refer to what I said before. If it is, stop, because I guarantee you more people respect PCS and Tarhog's opinion than yours. Anioch is off-base and offensive.

If this is just an honest head's up by you, then may I suggest you direct it to the correct person.

[Chopper Dave]

Originally posted by Tarhog
Look. There are certainly arguments you can make for getting rid of the electoral college. I don't happen to be swayed by them, but there are decent arguments.

So make them.

Or don't.

But there's no reason, for anyone, to get their panties in a wad over it. Seriously. Is that the peak of geekdom to get in a pissing match over a discussion over the validity of the electoral college system? Confessing to that particular sin might well result in one never getting laid again.

Discuss away fellas, but please lets try and keep it civil. Best advice I can give, when you get all hot and bothered on a topic, just walk away for awhile. It happens to the best of us. Just take a break, and the electoral college won't seem so important in the morning. I promise ;)

Good call. Maybe we can actually discuss this rather than throw mud if some people would heed your advice. I know I keep it civil as best I can, and I only strike back when people attack me. Anioch, I'd be willing to debate with you, but please, cool your jets and read the thread before you get personal.

[Thiebear]

What state do you live in Chopper Dave?

Will the Presidential Election come through YOUR state if it went to Popular Vote? Do you live in one of the 9-12 states?

Now if they didnt put up two people that were basically CLONES of each other this wouldnt be such and issue... I blame it on the choices not the people that vote for the choices...
Dean vs. Bush = not close
They guy that talks to dead people vs. Bush = not close
Lieberman vs. Bush = too close
Gephardt ahahahah nevermind.
Kerry vs. Bush = agrees and disagree's on every issue?
Gore vs. Bush = both sucked during the election and nobody knew who to vote for.. the plank or the skank so as always you end up going home with the... what? ohh gotta go...
;)

[Chopper Dave]

Originally posted by Thiebear
What state do you live in Chopper Dave?

Will the Presidential Election come through YOUR state if it went to Popular Vote? Do you live in one of the 9-12 states?

Now if they didnt put up two people that were basically CLONES of each other this wouldnt be such and issue... I blame it on the choices not the people that vote for the choices...
Dean vs. Bush = not close
They guy that talks to dead people vs. Bush = not close
Lieberman vs. Bush = too close
Gephardt ahahahah nevermind.
Kerry vs. Bush = agrees and disagree's on every issue?
Gore vs. Bush = both sucked during the election and nobody knew who to vote for.. the plank or the skank so as always you end up going home with the... what? ohh gotta go...
;)

I live in THE state. The Big FL. And I know that the election would be alot closer if all the, um, trying to think of a politically correct way to say this, ah, Cyan and Yellow Neck Pigmentation-challenged people in the northern part of the state didn't take all of the electoral votes away from the transplants in the southern part of the state. Bush (or Kerry) getting all of the electoral votes from such a politcally diverse state just isn't fair.

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by Chopper Dave
SnV, you and Anioch are the only ones who are off target. Anioch apparently thinks that I think that if Bush wins the electoral college, then he still doesn't win. Or that's at least what his arguments would suggest.

If this is truly you trying to "convince me to refrain," well, thanks but no thanks. Anioch is slinging attacks, and I'm holding back, trying to maintain a semblance of discussion.

Truthfully though, I think I see what you're really doing, and if it's what I think it is, I don't like it. I know you don't like me, we've been through this before, and you're just siding with Anioch to make me look like the bad guy.

If that's not the case, I apologize, so refer to what I said before. If it is, stop, because I guarantee you more people respect PCS and Tarhog's opinion than yours. Anioch is off-base and offensive.

If this is just an honest head's up by you, then may I suggest you direct it to the correct person.


I'm sorry that you doubt my motives for posting and I just think that you are misunderstanding some of the underlying components behind the Electoral College. I'm not looking for debate about the argument path between you two what-so-ever, and I am not "siding" with anybody on the emotional points.

I just happen to agree with Antioch on the rationale for the EC and his point on there really is no other way that hasnt been extensively researched. I also concur that because our nation has never been a pure democracy, that using the popular vote is not an option without dramatic ramifications(potentially).

I wholeheartedly agree that it would be wonderful for the true will of the people to be reflected via direct referendum voting. Unfortunately, no one has created a format that works in our countries long history.

Again, I am saddened by your perception of me and I had good intentions in my original post. The EC is a fascinating topic and I would advise you to learn even more about some of the twists that are involved. Plus, think of the kick ***** debates you can have when you are a pro at EC knowledge!

[Chopper Dave]

Originally posted by skin-n-vegas



I'm sorry that you doubt my motives for posting and I just think that you are misunderstanding some of the underlying components behind the Electoral College. I'm not looking for debate about the argument path between you two what-so-ever, and I am not "siding" with anybody on the emotional points.

I just happen to agree with Antioch on the rationale for the EC and his point on there really is no other way that hasnt been extensively researched. I also concur that because our nation has never been a pure democracy, that using the popular vote is not an option without dramatic ramifications(potentially).

I wholeheartedly agree that it would be wonderful for the true will of the people to be reflected via direct referendum voting. Unfortunately, no one has created a format that works in our countries long history.

Again, I am saddened by your perception of me and I had good intentions in my original post. The EC is a fascinating topic and I would advise you to learn even more about some of the twists that are involved. Plus, think of the kick ***** debates you can have when you are a pro at EC knowledge!


A response in a word.... eh.

I'd further elaborate, but I GTG. It looks like the power might go any minute.

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by Chopper Dave



A response in a word.... eh.

I'd further elaborate, but I GTG. It looks like the power might go any minute.



Good luck Dave.

Sorry, I don't understand qhat you meant before you left. Hope to pick it up later.

[Sea Bass]

Originally posted by Chopper Dave
We're debating two different things. I know how the electoral college works. I'm saying that it SHOULD work differently, because, clearly, your infinite wisdom includes the knowledge that the Constitution can be amended.

Reading tends to further the debate process. Do it, you might not seem insane. I stated many times throughout this thread that an effective, easy alternative is to either allow the splitting of electoral votes, or eliminating the electoral college altogether while leaving the state-by-state voting system the same. But in your fervor to paint me as a ranting ball of emotion, you seemed to miss this.

I haven't attacked anyone (until now, and maybe a little before with twa, but I held back), unlike you, and it's laughable that you criticize my argumentative skills without even knowing what the argument is about.

Again, if you had read up on the debate, maybe you wouldn't sound like a rambling fool. And BTW, I know the similarities between France and our election systems. It has nothing to do with this debate, but believe it or not, I do see the parallel.

So are you suggesting the President be elected by a popular vote that is tallied by the individual states and then added together?

[SkinsHokie Fan]

I believe Chopper is reccomending that each state tally the votes, and that is how the popular system would work.

For example Cali would count its votes and send them in and so would Florida. Therefore if there were an issue in a particular state (i.e Florida) only Florida would go to the recount rather than a national recount.

My only worry is you would never have re-counted Florida in the first place in 2000 because it would not have mattered with the popular vote. Gore was up by a little over 500k. Recounting Florida would not have made a difference.

However Bush may have tried getting re-counts in states he closley lost and in states he won big time to try and close the gap. Likewise Al Gore would have done the same thing to increase his lead

[THE HAMMER'IN HOG]

Originally posted by Chopper Dave
Hey, Anioch, I have a better idea. Why don't you actually talk about something, anything, in your posts, or come back when you can contribute something meaningful. Telling me to "stay in school and learn something" just shows you have nothing. Zilch. You have no point.

And for the record, when more than 50% of the people in a country vote for someone, it's THEIR COLLECTIVE WILL. Not mine. If it were to happen the other way around, I'd be happy Kerry won, but it still wouldn't be fair.

Fair is when you play by the rules, whatever they are, both sides have the same opportunity, the election process is not slanted in favor of either candidate.

[THE HAMMER'IN HOG]

Originally posted by Chopper Dave


I live in THE state. The Big FL. And I know that the election would be alot closer if all the, um, trying to think of a politically correct way to say this, ah, Cyan and Yellow Neck Pigmentation-challenged people in the northern part of the state didn't take all of the electoral votes away from the transplants in the southern part of the state. Bush (or Kerry) getting all of the electoral votes from such a politcally diverse state just isn't fair.

Don't make me laugh with that one! I live in jersey, Have you ever heard of newark? Or every dem's cake walk, without newark Bush win's jersey hand's down!!!!!!!!!!