How the electoral process works.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You could cut the electoral college voters out of the process altogether and just make it a state electoral vote system and it would still work just as well.

So keep the system, ditch the ceremonial voters? I'd agree to that. It would probably save some money.

[Koga No Goshi]

So keep the system, ditch the ceremonial voters? I'd agree to that. It would probably save some money.

I think the thing with that is that once you ditch the voters questions come up about why keep the electoral system at all. In effect, the prime argument I hear to defend it (that it's kind of a cushion to make sure people aren't voting themselves in a dictator or something, over and over) has been made somewhat obsolete by both the primary system and term limits.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think the thing with that is that once you ditch the voters questions come up about why keep the electoral system at all. In effect, the prime argument I hear to defend it (that it's kind of a cushion to make sure people aren't voting themselves in a dictator or something, over and over) has been made somewhat obsolete by both the primary system and term limits.

No it hasn't. The primary system is not a government system - I don't trust it and I have no control over it because I am not a Republican or Democrat. The electoral college ensures that most states are considered in elections instead of Cali, Texas, Florida, New York, Il and Ohio. It gives a voice to the people in suburban or rural areas who would be marginalized by rather homogeneous metropolitan votes across the board. It also ensures a web of acceptance for the winning candidate instead of center-coastal split.

Good idea about getting rid of the actual electors, they are unnecessary.

Also, when were voters "ditched"? You mean when we were forming our government and writing the Constitution?

Your guy is winning electoral votes by a huge margin because he convinced a more varied swathe of Americans that he was the right candidate for the job. Even though he doesn't have half the vote yet, he is still leading by big electoral numbers. He has done a better job in his campaign.

[Koga No Goshi]

No it hasn't. The primary system is not a government system - I don't trust it and I have no control over it because I am not a Republican or Democrat. The electoral college ensures that most states are considered in elections instead of Cali, Texas, Florida, New York, Il and Ohio. It gives a voice to the people in suburban or rural areas who would be marginalized by rather homogeneous metropolitan votes across the board. It also ensures a web of acceptance for the winning candidate instead of center-coastal split.

Good idea about getting rid of the actual electors, they are unnecessary.

Also, when were voters "ditched"? You mean when they were forming our government and writing the Constitution?

...huh? I may be missing something but I'm lost what you mean with the ditched question.

At any rate, another interpretation of the electoral college system is that it basically hands decision on the election to the same 3-9 states (or even just 1 or 2 in some elections). I'm not a fan of it, obviously.

I don't think the whole nation should be decided by "hmmm will the retirees and Jewish communities in Florida call it for the guy who wants to cut medicare or the guy who is less vocal supporting Israel?"

[ICantSpellDawg]

...huh? I may be missing something but I'm lost what you mean with the ditched question.

"I think the thing with that is that once you ditch the voters" - you've just said it. My reply insinuated that by your standard they were never "on board" in the first place, since the electoral college was enshrined in the Constitution.

[Koga No Goshi]

"I think the thing with that is that once you ditch the voters" - you've just said it. My reply insinuated that by your standard they were never "on board" in the first place, since the electoral college was enshrined in the Constitution.

Oh by voters I mean if we get rid of the "ceremonial electoral voters", I don't know the technically correct term. Delegates? Electoral voters?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Oh by voters I mean if we get rid of the "ceremonial electoral voters", I don't know the technically correct term. Delegates? Electoral voters?

I see. I thought you meant voters as in the direct and popular vote.

[ICantSpellDawg]

...huh? I may be missing something but I'm lost what you mean with the ditched question.

At any rate, another interpretation of the electoral college system is that it basically hands decision on the election to the same 3-9 states (or even just 1 or 2 in some elections). I'm not a fan of it, obviously.

I don't think the whole nation should be decided by "hmmm will the retirees and Jewish communities in Florida call it for the guy who wants to cut medicare or the guy who is less vocal supporting Israel?"

It isn't decided by Florida. Sometimes it comes down to Florida, but more appropriately that is because the state is split between Dems and Reps, unlike many other states. Whichever candidate wins the majority of their own party and a sizable portion of independents and the other party in a closely split state, that should explain itself why it would be more important than a State that doesn't think too hard about its candidate like New York or South Dakota.

[Koga No Goshi]

It isn't decided by Florida. Sometimes it comes down to Florida, but more appropriately that is because the state is split between Dems and Reps, unlike many other states. Whichever candidate wins the majority of their own party and a sizable portion of independents and the other party in a closely split state, that should explain itself why it would be more important than a State that doesn't think too hard about its candidate like New York or South Dakota.

I was just using it as one example. You know what I meant. And, states like New York, or California, or South Dakota, or Arkansas, don't think much about their candidates because they don't have to. The prevailing mindset is "eh, no matter what we do our state is going x color anyway." So I reiterate my original point, it comes down to a few (or even one) split states deciding it-- rather than the "terrible" scenario of pure popular vote.

[Kadagar_AV]

why isnt it just: one person, one vote... Whoever gets the most votes wins.

Too easy?