The Electoral system

In the 2000 election Gore won the popular vote by about 500,000 votes,
but lost the election to Bush by the Electoral vote count.

In the 2004 election Bush won the popular vote by about 3,500,000 votes,
but if Kerry had gotten about 140,000 more votes in Ohio he would now be
the President-elect by virtue of a majority of Electoral votes.

Isn't it time to reform this stupid, broken system?

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Broken in your view, not in mine.

--


---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Are you still wasting your time with spam?...
There is a solution!"

Protected by GIANT Company's Spam Inspector
The most powerful anti-spam software available.
http://mail.spaminspector.com


"rw" wrote in message
m...
In the 2000 election Gore won the popular vote by about 500,000 votes,
but lost the election to Bush by the Electoral vote count.

In the 2004 election Bush won the popular vote by about 3,500,000 votes,
but if Kerry had gotten about 140,000 more votes in Ohio he would now be
the President-elect by virtue of a majority of Electoral votes.

Isn't it time to reform this stupid, broken system?

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Sierra fisher wrote:
Broken in your view, not in mine.


California has a population (2003 estimate) of 35,484,453, and 55
electoral votes. That comes to 1.5x10-6 electoral-votes/person.

Wyoming has a population of 439,479 (2002 estimate) and 3 electoral
votes. That comes to 6.8x10-6 electoral-votes/person.

A voter in Wyoming has 4.5 times the voting power of a voter in
California in a Presidential election. That's wrong in my book.

If Kerry had carried Ohio, and it was close, the Republicans would be
screaming for reform of the electoral system.

In the original Constitution, slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person in
national elections. That was a compromise to get the Southern states to
ratify. That was wrong, and it was later corrected. The Constitution is
a living document.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

"rw" wrote in message
m...

California has a population (2003 estimate) of 35,484,453, and 55
electoral votes. That comes to 1.5x10-6 electoral-votes/person.

Wyoming has a population of 439,479 (2002 estimate) and 3 electoral
votes. That comes to 6.8x10-6 electoral-votes/person.

A voter in Wyoming has 4.5 times the voting power of a voter in
California in a Presidential election. That's wrong in my book.
snip

Heck, RW, if that's the criteria for a "broken system", don't just stop with
doing away with the electoral college, get rid of the Senate as well. After
all both Wyoming and California get the same number of senators. Each voter
in WY has 717 times the representation in the Senate of a voter in CA., so
the system must be truly "broken". Gee, the designers of our constitution
must not have had any idea of what they were doing..

Bob Weinberger
La, Grande, OR

place a dot between bobs and stuff and remove invalid to send email

Bob Weinberger wrote:

Heck, RW, if that's the criteria for a "broken system", don't just stop with
doing away with the electoral college, get rid of the Senate as well. After
all both Wyoming and California get the same number of senators. Each voter
in WY has 717 times the representation in the Senate of a voter in CA., so
the system must be truly "broken". Gee, the designers of our constitution
must not have had any idea of what they were doing..

They knew what they were doing. They were pragmatically crafting a
compromise. Times change.

I wouldn't do away with the Senate. Senators are the representatives of
the people of their states. The President is supposed to be the
President of ALL the people. As it stands, the President, no matter who
he is or of which party, is 4.5 times the President of a person in
Wyoming compared to a person in California.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

"rw" wrote in message
m...

I wouldn't do away with the Senate. Senators are the representatives of
the people of their states. The President is supposed to be the
President of ALL the people. As it stands, the President, no matter who
he is or of which party, is 4.5 times the President of a person in
Wyoming compared to a person in California.

the validity of the above statement -
Consider the fact that the voters in Riverside County, CA had presidential
voting patterns closer to those of Laramie County, WY (58% Bush & 59% Bush
resp.) than they did to those of Modoc County, CA (73% Bush).

While the Presidency is a national office, under our constitution, it is an
office for which the winner is chosen by the states, not by the population
at large. The constitution does not spell out how the states are to pick
their electors. It just so happens that most states have chosen to use a
winner take all election. Some states (Nebraska & Maine for example)
apportion the selection of their electors based on the vote within their
state. If a similar method were chosen by all the states, the results would
likely be "fairer". However, if a state legislature so ruled and were
granted the permission to do so by their citizens, they could bypass having
an election for President within their state, choose the electors
themselves, and designate how they want the electors to cast their votes.
They could even delegate the choice of electors to the Governor (Hell, they
could even choose to do it by random drawing.)

Unless we are willing to drastically change our form of government to one
even more federalist than it already is, changes to the electoral system
need to be made state by state.


--
Bob Weinberger
La, Grande, OR

place a dot between bobs and stuff and remove invalid to send email

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 13:00:06 -0700, rw
wrote:

As it stands, the President, no matter who
he is or of which party, is 4.5 times the President of a person in
Wyoming compared to a person in California.


That's cause they tend to be very short in Wyoming.

"rw" wrote in message
m...

I wouldn't do away with the Senate. Senators are the representatives of
the people of their states. The President is supposed to be the
President of ALL the people. As it stands, the President, no matter who
he is or of which party, is 4.5 times the President of a person in
Wyoming compared to a person in California.

the validity of the above statement -
Consider the fact that the voters in Riverside County, CA had presidential
voting patterns closer to those of Laramie County, WY (58% Bush & 59% Bush
resp.) than they did to those of Modoc County, CA (73% Bush).

While the Presidency is a national office, under our constitution, it is an
office for which the winner is chosen by the states, not by the population
at large. The constitution does not spell out how the states are to pick
their electors. It just so happens that most states have chosen to use a
winner take all election. Some states (Nebraska & Maine for example)
apportion the selection of their electors based on the vote within their
state. If a similar method were chosen by all the states, the results would
likely be "fairer". However, if a state legislature so ruled and were
granted the permission to do so by their citizens, they could bypass having
an election for President within their state, choose the electors
themselves, and designate how they want the electors to cast their votes.
They could even delegate the choice of electors to the Governor (Hell, they
could even choose to do it by random drawing.)

Unless we are willing to drastically change our form of government to one
even more federalist than it already is, changes to the electoral system
need to be made state by state.


--
Bob Weinberger
La, Grande, OR

place a dot between bobs and stuff and remove invalid to send email

"rw" wrote in message
m...

I wouldn't do away with the Senate. Senators are the representatives of
the people of their states. The President is supposed to be the
President of ALL the people. As it stands, the President, no matter who
he is or of which party, is 4.5 times the President of a person in
Wyoming compared to a person in California.

the validity of the above statement -
Consider the fact that the voters in Riverside County, CA had presidential
voting patterns closer to those of Laramie County, WY (58% Bush & 59% Bush
resp.) than they did to those of Modoc County, CA (73% Bush).

While the Presidency is a national office, under our constitution, it is an
office for which the winner is chosen by the states, not by the population
at large. The constitution does not spell out how the states are to pick
their electors. It just so happens that most states have chosen to use a
winner take all election. Some states (Nebraska & Maine for example)
apportion the selection of their electors based on the vote within their
state. If a similar method were chosen by all the states, the results would
likely be "fairer". However, if a state legislature so ruled and were
granted the permission to do so by their citizens, they could bypass having
an election for President within their state, choose the electors
themselves, and designate how they want the electors to cast their votes.
They could even delegate the choice of electors to the Governor (Hell, they
could even choose to do it by random drawing.)

Unless we are willing to drastically change our form of government to one
even more federalist than it already is, changes to the electoral system
need to be made state by state.


--
Bob Weinberger
La, Grande, OR

place a dot between bobs and stuff and remove invalid to send email

Bob Weinberger wrote:

Heck, RW, if that's the criteria for a "broken system", don't just stop with
doing away with the electoral college, get rid of the Senate as well. After
all both Wyoming and California get the same number of senators. Each voter
in WY has 717 times the representation in the Senate of a voter in CA., so
the system must be truly "broken". Gee, the designers of our constitution
must not have had any idea of what they were doing..

They knew what they were doing. They were pragmatically crafting a
compromise. Times change.

I wouldn't do away with the Senate. Senators are the representatives of
the people of their states. The President is supposed to be the
President of ALL the people. As it stands, the President, no matter who
he is or of which party, is 4.5 times the President of a person in
Wyoming compared to a person in California.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.