The reason that they started the electorial college was because the U.S.government felt that it would be easier for them .When they first started voting, they had to count each vote by hand. They felt that if they used the electorial college, it would minimize the errors. today with computers, there is no need for the electorial college.
Furthermore, the worst presidents in the history of our county would have lost if it was by the popular vote. Dewey actually got more votes than Nixon. Nixon ended up being impeached because of Watergate.
Bush lost the popular vote to Gore. Maybe we would not be in a war with Iraq, if Gore would not have won. And Iraq had nothing to do with 911!!!! And there were no weapons of mass destruction found there!!!! He just wants to finish what his Daddy did not finish when he was in office. Also, this crap with the survelience....he just stomps all over our constitutional rights! Also, our economy has been in the crapper since Bush has been in office. Every time I fill up my car, I thank George Bush (sarcastically). And what the kicker is......is that more people voted for Gore. Gore should have been the president.
Actually, paragraph by paragraph: kinda disagree, Truman must be feeling pretty silly (but a lot of people should feel sillier), I absolutely agree and I find that it is difficult for most people to admit/think that... more on that later?
Well, you think it's the electoral college's fault about the 2000 Election Fiasco or the Voter's or certain persons place in charge of the recount, like Catherine Harris. Wouldn't it be better if we elected people in the same fashion across the country, so everyone can be familiar with the process. Like in my area, we have voting machine where you simply press down on the leave above the name of the candidate you want to elect. Pretty simple. A lot simpler than that butterfly ballot.
Good question(s). (I'm going to assume that there are question marks at the end of the first two sentences.) I'm glad you asked. While I think I have an answer I'm sure that I don't have the answer. I'm fairly sure that there isn't a the answer.
There aren't enough fingers to go around when assigning blame for what happened in Florida 2000. In terms of the Electoral College, as you imply, the entire 2000 Election was a fiasco. But it' not really 2000's fault; it is primarily (hah-ha!)Election's fault. It is the election process itself which is faulty. The year 2000 is just the "first time" that it mattered. Quick points first: It's hard to argue against people everywhere, or at least statewide, voting in the same way. I'm not doing that. I would like to point out that this would bring its own drawbacks. Leaving aside the monumental task of creating a one-size-fits-all system that can accomodate everything from California's initiative process to a town's school board at-large contest this would mean that any kind of fiasco would be a nationwide fiasco.
What would happen if there was a fatal flaw in a voting system/machine? Much like Dutch Elm disease it would spread across the country and destroy almost everything it touched. It's a lot easier to recount votes precinct by precinct, not New England by Pacific Northwest. I forget who it was but, upon hearing of computer voting systems, someone said, "I can't wait to see who the hackers want to be president."
It is also easy to rail against partisanship influencing the election process. It is easy but naïve. Taking the political out of politics is like taking the pee out of swimming. You hate it, it's a bad idea but everybody does it and it's difficult to detect. Having said that I do not see how Catherine Harris, part of the Bush effort in Florida, was allowed to oversee and then declare the results of the election. The best thing that voters can do is insist on legislation to prevent such activities... and then vote on it.
The inherent "fairness" of American elections have always had deeper problems. Voting on a Tuesday when most people work and have to get their kids to school is so inherently classist it defies belief. I don't like it that the Electoral College gives a North Dakota voter a greater proportional vote than a New York voter. I think it is worse that a voter of above average income has a much greater vote than a citizen of below median income. I think that is a subtle but enormous difference.
If you wish that "we elected people in the same fashion across the country" then I assume that you'd like voter registration to follow universal rules. If poll workers are already taxed (hah-ha!) to the limit can you imagine what same day voter registration would do nationwide? In a close fought election? In Hawaii with the electoral college still up for grabs? Aloha? That was quick!? If you worship the American Founding Fathers, or even if you don't and I certainly don't, you have to admit that what they created was a Republic. They did not create a Democracy. Whether you count paper ballots by the thousands or electronic votes by the millions a true democracy would be too unwieldy to govern. I don't believe that the Founding Fathers (there are always air quotes around that phrase) wanted a democracy. They wanted the President to be selected by themselves. Hence the "elector"s of the "Elector"al College. Keep in mind that the United States didn't have the direct election of Senators until 1913 and that was achieved by an Ammendment to the Constitution.
Residents of the United States capitol couldn't vote for President until 1964.
It doesn't seem fair that Al Gore could win the popular vote and still lose the election but those were the rules of the game. Both candidates played by the rules... even if they bent them almost beyond recognition. Both candidates benefitted from the rules. Again, if you thought the recount in Florida was a fiasco can you imagine examining pregnant chads in all fifty states plus DC? The machinery of the electoral college protects against that and I very consciously use the word "protects."
I admit that I have partisan feelings and opinions about the 2000 Election and all that has come after. I wish that Al Gore had won. I firmly believe, not in WMD, but in WPE. Worst. President. Ever. I think that the administration of President Bush has caused the downfall of the American Empire. This is by no means a complete tragedy but the difference between reality and the alternate reality of America ascendant under President Gore is a true tragedy. But I hope that you will think me more of a realist than a partisan in what is turning out to be a lot of writing.
Politics is not a pretty game. It is war conducted without armed conflict. We could discuss shenanigans and corruption without end. Eliminating the Electoral College will not bring morality and fairness to voting. Getting rid of the two-party system won't. Neither will free television time. Publicly financed elections won't although it sure would help. Overturning the Supreme Court's determination that money equals speech and therefore "free speech" can be paid for might also help... but that is not the Electoral College. Seven members of the Supreme Court deciding the election for Bush who were appointed by Republicans, two of them appointed by his dad are just the spoils of the Electoral College and not the cause. All of the sins of politics should not be laid at the College door.
The Electoral College has one great benefit that I can think of for national fairness if not democracy. By breaking up the election voting into discrete states a candidate and, by extension, her party cannot ignore large parts of the country. If the Presidency was decided strictly by the popular vote the temptation would be to campaign for votes only in densely populated areas. This would be great news for the coasts, African-Americans, city-dwellers, financial institutions, liberals and white-collar workers. It would be disastrous for the middle of America, Latinos, rural areas, highways, conservatives and farmers. I think that this broadening of the national interest is a good thing especially in a country as large and powerful as the United States.
One thing that I would desperately like to see is the elimination of the Senatorial +2 state electoral vote affect. States should have electoral votes in direct proportion to their population. Winning California (one state with a population of 36 million or so) should not be equivalent to winning Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Wyoming and both Dakotas (thirteen states with a population around twenty million.) Does that make it clear as to how Bush "won" and actually won. No question mark.
If that doesn't squash all discussion I don't know what will... but I hope it doesn't 'cause it's just my opinion stated as fact. Was that out loud?
Sorry to be butterfly-ballot confusing but... it happens.
Your reply was well thought out. I still think that there needs to be a better way because I feel the same way about G. Bush. I feel that he has been a horrible president. He did not win the popular vote.....but still won. What I can't understand is how he was elected a 2nd time. Our economy has been in a steady decline since he was elected. While Clinton was in office, the economy was doing well. We had a recession when Bush Sr. was in office and when Reagan was in office........see a trend? We need to learn from our mistakes. O
Well, It's very hard to beat a war-time President anyway, even if the war is somewhat bogus. The reason why Johnson was beated so easily is that he basically stepped down as President without actually resigning. He just said he would not seek a second term. I think Bush 1 lost because the economic recession planted by Reagan's "brilliant" economic strategy became a higher issue. And I think the first Iraq War was pretty much wrapped up by the time 1992 election came around. Possibly why Bush 2 extended the occupation in Iraq was to keep people's mind on the chaotic mess in Iraq. And also, perhaps Kerry wasn't the strongest candidate Democrats could have picked. I mean he was the lesser of two evils, but even his own party wasn't too in love with him.
What Kerry should have done is not be so defensive about his war record and just talk about the facts. He actually made speeches after he lost that were better and made more sense. He did not run his campaign well. Maybe if he ran a better campaign, maybe he would have won. He was a lot better choice than Bush. Actually, I would have voted for Gore over both Bush and Kerry.
Reagonomics killed our economy.....a lot of people, especially stout Republicans choose to forget about that. There is also evidence that Reagan paid for the Iran hostages with guns. He paid them to wait until after the election to free the hostages. So, the day that Carter was sworn in and Reagan was sworn out was the day the hostages were released.....coincidence? I think not. Bush was up to his eyeballs in the scandal. So, I did not want him or trust him in office.
It is true that during wartime the incumbent does fair well in re-elections. But, it is sad to think that the meglomanic would put our troops lives in danger to become re-elected. I still feel we have no business over there. There were no connections to 911 and Iraq. And there were no weapons of mass destruction. He just wanted to finish what his daddy could not finished.
Acutally, I am a little embarassed by the no question marks. I used to be very good with English and grammar. I will be more careful next time. Thanks for putting it out, though.
The reason that they started the electorial college was because the U.S.government felt that it would be easier for them .When they first started voting, they had to count each vote by hand. They felt that if they used the electorial college, it would minimize the errors. today with computers, there is no need for the electorial college.
Furthermore, the worst presidents in the history of our county would have lost if it was by the popular vote. Dewey actually got more votes than Nixon. Nixon ended up being impeached because of Watergate.
Bush lost the popular vote to Gore. Maybe we would not be in a war with Iraq, if Gore would not have won. And Iraq had nothing to do with 911!!!! And there were no weapons of mass destruction found there!!!! He just wants to finish what his Daddy did not finish when he was in office. Also, this crap with the survelience....he just stomps all over our constitutional rights! Also, our economy has been in the crapper since Bush has been in office. Every time I fill up my car, I thank George Bush (sarcastically). And what the kicker is......is that more people voted for Gore. Gore should have been the president.
I kinda disagree... more on that later?
Actually, paragraph by paragraph: kinda disagree, Truman must be feeling pretty silly (but a lot of people should feel sillier), I absolutely agree and I find that it is difficult for most people to admit/think that... more on that later?
Well, you think it's the electoral college's fault about the 2000 Election Fiasco or the Voter's or certain persons place in charge of the recount, like Catherine Harris. Wouldn't it be better if we elected people in the same fashion across the country, so everyone can be familiar with the process. Like in my area, we have voting machine where you simply press down on the leave above the name of the candidate you want to elect. Pretty simple. A lot simpler than that butterfly ballot.
Good question(s). (I'm going to assume that there are question marks at the end of the first two sentences.) I'm glad you asked. While I think I have an answer I'm sure that I don't have the answer. I'm fairly sure that there isn't a the answer.
There aren't enough fingers to go around when assigning blame for what happened in Florida 2000. In terms of the Electoral College, as you imply, the entire 2000 Election was a fiasco. But it' not really 2000's fault; it is primarily (hah-ha!) Election's fault. It is the election process itself which is faulty. The year 2000 is just the "first time" that it mattered.
Quick points first:
It's hard to argue against people everywhere, or at least statewide, voting in the same way. I'm not doing that. I would like to point out that this would bring its own drawbacks. Leaving aside the monumental task of creating a one-size-fits-all system that can accomodate everything from California's initiative process to a town's school board at-large contest this would mean that any kind of fiasco would be a nationwide fiasco.
What would happen if there was a fatal flaw in a voting system/machine? Much like Dutch Elm disease it would spread across the country and destroy almost everything it touched. It's a lot easier to recount votes precinct by precinct, not New England by Pacific Northwest. I forget who it was but, upon hearing of computer voting systems, someone said, "I can't wait to see who the hackers want to be president."
It is also easy to rail against partisanship influencing the election process. It is easy but naïve. Taking the political out of politics is like taking the pee out of swimming. You hate it, it's a bad idea but everybody does it and it's difficult to detect. Having said that I do not see how Catherine Harris, part of the Bush effort in Florida, was allowed to oversee and then declare the results of the election. The best thing that voters can do is insist on legislation to prevent such activities... and then vote on it.
The inherent "fairness" of American elections have always had deeper problems. Voting on a Tuesday when most people work and have to get their kids to school is so inherently classist it defies belief. I don't like it that the Electoral College gives a North Dakota voter a greater proportional vote than a New York voter. I think it is worse that a voter of above average income has a much greater vote than a citizen of below median income. I think that is a subtle but enormous difference.
If you wish that "we elected people in the same fashion across the country" then I assume that you'd like voter registration to follow universal rules. If poll workers are already taxed (hah-ha!) to the limit can you imagine what same day voter registration would do nationwide? In a close fought election? In Hawaii with the electoral college still up for grabs? Aloha?
That was quick!?
If you worship the American Founding Fathers, or even if you don't and I certainly don't, you have to admit that what they created was a Republic. They did not create a Democracy. Whether you count paper ballots by the thousands or electronic votes by the millions a true democracy would be too unwieldy to govern. I don't believe that the Founding Fathers (there are always air quotes around that phrase) wanted a democracy. They wanted the President to be selected by themselves. Hence the "elector"s of the "Elector"al College. Keep in mind that the United States didn't have the direct election of Senators until 1913 and that was achieved by an Ammendment to the Constitution.
Residents of the United States capitol couldn't vote for President until 1964.
It doesn't seem fair that Al Gore could win the popular vote and still lose the election but those were the rules of the game. Both candidates played by the rules... even if they bent them almost beyond recognition. Both candidates benefitted from the rules. Again, if you thought the recount in Florida was a fiasco can you imagine examining pregnant chads in all fifty states plus DC? The machinery of the electoral college protects against that and I very consciously use the word "protects."
I admit that I have partisan feelings and opinions about the 2000 Election and all that has come after. I wish that Al Gore had won. I firmly believe, not in WMD, but in WPE. Worst. President. Ever. I think that the administration of President Bush has caused the downfall of the American Empire. This is by no means a complete tragedy but the difference between reality and the alternate reality of America ascendant under President Gore is a true tragedy. But I hope that you will think me more of a realist than a partisan in what is turning out to be a lot of writing.
Politics is not a pretty game. It is war conducted without armed conflict. We could discuss shenanigans and corruption without end. Eliminating the Electoral College will not bring morality and fairness to voting. Getting rid of the two-party system won't. Neither will free television time. Publicly financed elections won't although it sure would help. Overturning the Supreme Court's determination that money equals speech and therefore "free speech" can be paid for might also help... but that is not the Electoral College. Seven members of the Supreme Court deciding the election for Bush who were appointed by Republicans, two of them appointed by his dad are just the spoils of the Electoral College and not the cause. All of the sins of politics should not be laid at the College door.
The Electoral College has one great benefit that I can think of for national fairness if not democracy. By breaking up the election voting into discrete states a candidate and, by extension, her party cannot ignore large parts of the country. If the Presidency was decided strictly by the popular vote the temptation would be to campaign for votes only in densely populated areas. This would be great news for the coasts, African-Americans, city-dwellers, financial institutions, liberals and white-collar workers. It would be disastrous for the middle of America, Latinos, rural areas, highways, conservatives and farmers. I think that this broadening of the national interest is a good thing especially in a country as large and powerful as the United States.
One thing that I would desperately like to see is the elimination of the Senatorial +2 state electoral vote affect. States should have electoral votes in direct proportion to their population. Winning California (one state with a population of 36 million or so) should not be equivalent to winning Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Wyoming and both Dakotas (thirteen states with a population around twenty million.) Does that make it clear as to how Bush "won" and actually won.
No question mark.
If that doesn't squash all discussion I don't know what will... but I hope it doesn't 'cause it's just my opinion stated as fact.
Was that out loud?
Sorry to be butterfly-ballot confusing but... it happens.
Your reply was well thought out. I still think that there needs to be a better way because I feel the same way about G. Bush. I feel that he has been a horrible president. He did not win the popular vote.....but still won. What I can't understand is how he was elected a 2nd time. Our economy has been in a steady decline since he was elected. While Clinton was in office, the economy was doing well. We had a recession when Bush Sr. was in office and when Reagan was in office........see a trend? We need to learn from our mistakes. O
Well, It's very hard to beat a war-time President anyway, even if the war is somewhat bogus. The reason why Johnson was beated so easily is that he basically stepped down as President without actually resigning. He just said he would not seek a second term. I think Bush 1 lost because the economic recession planted by Reagan's "brilliant" economic strategy became a higher issue. And I think the first Iraq War was pretty much wrapped up by the time 1992 election came around. Possibly why Bush 2 extended the occupation in Iraq was to keep people's mind on the chaotic mess in Iraq. And also, perhaps Kerry wasn't the strongest candidate Democrats could have picked. I mean he was the lesser of two evils, but even his own party wasn't too in love with him.
What Kerry should have done is not be so defensive about his war record and just talk about the facts. He actually made speeches after he lost that were better and made more sense. He did not run his campaign well. Maybe if he ran a better campaign, maybe he would have won. He was a lot better choice than Bush. Actually, I would have voted for Gore over both Bush and Kerry.
Reagonomics killed our economy.....a lot of people, especially stout Republicans choose to forget about that. There is also evidence that Reagan paid for the Iran hostages with guns. He paid them to wait until after the election to free the hostages. So, the day that Carter was sworn in and Reagan was sworn out was the day the hostages were released.....coincidence? I think not. Bush was up to his eyeballs in the scandal. So, I did not want him or trust him in office.
It is true that during wartime the incumbent does fair well in re-elections. But, it is sad to think that the meglomanic would put our troops lives in danger to become re-elected. I still feel we have no business over there. There were no connections to 911 and Iraq. And there were no weapons of mass destruction. He just wanted to finish what his daddy could not finished.
Acutally, I am a little embarassed by the no question marks. I used to be very good with English and grammar. I will be more careful next time. Thanks for putting it out, though.