Liberal's Last Move: The Electoral College


#1

This year, Gore called for letting the popular vote determine the presidency. “The logic is it knits the country together, prevents regional conflicts, and it goes back through our history to [address] some legitimate concerns,” Gore said.

Forget the polls: The Electoral College is what matters | Elections & Politics | News fr…
Does this story sound familiar? This is a last move. It is a move that says. I can’t win by the normal campaign process. Let’s think about other crazy moves that MIGHT allow me to win. We’ve seen this before in the republican primaries when three folks who dropped out of the race dared to challenge the man who seemed to be winning after they all but admitted defeat. Romney beat everyone in the primaries but Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul all threatened to use their delegates and various get out the vote campaigns to get people to win by the rumored “delegate process.” As you know, that didnt happen and actually couldn’t happen. In the end those delegates went to Romney and he became the official nominee.

Now, we are getting the same thinking here from Al Gore! Still disgruntled that he lost to Bush for the Electoral College vote. He is urging Obama to give up on his supporters and only talk to THOSE guys. Saying that the voters don’t matter and if any do, it’s the swing states!

So not only is this admitting that they are losing and in deep trouble, Al Gore wants to change up the entire strategy and do something that probably wouldn’t work anyway.

What are your thoughts on the Obama campaign’s hopeless electoral college idea?


#2

The electoral college doesn’t solve the problem it’s supposed to, though. Even if small states are given a higher proportion of electoral votes, the problem just changes from big states vs small states to swing states. By only campaigning in the states that tend to swing, the candidates have a much higher chance of getting elected. However, if you eliminate the electoral college and use a popular, rather than getting all of the electoral votes of a state, you get percentages of the people of states. Candidates are forced to campaign even in states that tend to vote one way because it pays off in the extra votes you can get.

In the 18th and 19th centuries when it was a difficult process to transport and count votes, and when it was hard for candidates to travel from state to state, I can understand the need for an electoral college to give incentive to go to smaller states. However, today the electoral college doesn’t solve the problem small states face, because unless they swing, candidates don’t go there, and it gives a skewed view of who the people actually want. Further, with the advent of TV, radio, and Internet, as well as fast and efficient travel, a candidate doesn’t even have to visit a state in order to get information on him. The electoral college simply solves a problem that has disappeared in the modern era.

(Not that it really matters, the candidate with the popular vote in a two-party system usually wins the electoral college. Of course, I’d also want instant runoff voting, but that’s a pipe dream.)

(And this has no way in hell of going through before November, so speculating that Democrats might use this to win the election is crazy. There’s now way the election process would change less than a month before the election.)


#3

The Electoral College is written into the US Constitution, as is the procedure for amending said Constitution. That AlGore, et al, are demagoguing and not serious about this is proven by the fact that they have not made any serious attempt (and probably not even an unserious attempt) to amend the Constitution.

The Founders’ intent was to dilute populous states’ influence. In modern terms, to prevent Obama or Romney from pouring all their time and effort into the 5 or 10 most populous states and being beholden to them (while ignoring the other 80%-90% of the country). In that, the Electoral College concept has been successful. E.G., California is the most populous state, and neither Obama nor Rmney have campaigned here; Obama visits with some frequency, but only to use the Hollyweird and SF political ATM machines. As for Trekky’s assumption that their are “Red” and “Blue” blocs, reviewing the past 32 years of Presidential elections should reveal that there are few medium-term “safe” D or R states, and supposedly “safe” R or D regions in fact are not safe power bases. In pretty much every election I can remember, more states have been in play than just a handful of “swing states”, and many “safe” states have flipped on occasion.


#4

As for longterm “safe” blocs … much has been made the past several election cycles of Southern States being solidly R, and how this is driven by Southern racism (a narrative whose BS content I would guesstimate to be 80%-90% and increasing). The amusing this is, up to or through JFK in 1960, the “Democratic Solid South” used to be the core of many D Presidential wins, and back then, there was a significant element of racism - not the sole element! - in that solidarity.


#5

So, I took my own “challenge” and looked at the past 32 years of elections (1980-2008, 2012 being in the future) and looked at several stereotypical D and R states: CA supposedly D; OR supposedly D; AZ supposedly R; TX supposedly R; LA, being southern, supposedly R; IL supposedly D; MI supposedly D; FL, being southern, supposedly R; NC, being southern, supposedly R; MA supposedly D; NY supposedly D. So, what did they actually do?

CA: R 1988, 1984, 1980; D 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992

OR: R 1984, 1980; D 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988

AZ: R 2008, 2004, 2000, 1992, 1980; D 1996, 1988, 1984

TX: R 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980; D

LA: R 2004, 2000, 1988, 1984, 1980; D 2008, 1996, 1992

IL: R 1984, 1980; D 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988

MI: R 1988, 1984, 1980; D 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992

FL: R 2004, 2000, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980; D 2008, 1996

NC: R 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980; D 2008

MA: R 1984, 1980; D 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988

NY: R 1984, 1980; D 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988

In 32 years of elections, only TX voted reliably for only one party’s ® Presidential candidates, with NC being almost reliable, having just one exception. Had I looked back to 1956 - all the Presidential elections within my lifetime - there were four elections in which TX voted D (1960 and 1964, when native son LBJ was on the D Presidential ticket, 1968 and 1976; OTOH, TX “Liked Ike” in 1956, an Electoral College landslide year).


#6

The fact that swing states change every year doesn’t negate the fact that every year, election are won by a relatively small number of states, which is the problem we want to eliminate so that every vote counts.

In the 2004 election, this infographic represents, in purple, visits by either Bush or Kerry in the month before the election. Green represents millions of dollars spent in advertising.

I’m of the opinion that if, rather than winning a state and getting all it’s electoral votes, you only got the percentage of votes that actually voted for you, then the importance of swing states would be lessened. Further, as I said before, in the modern era, technology makes in very easy for less populous states to get information and media on candidates. It’s not like in the 1800s where if the candidate didn’t visit, you probably knew little about him. Rather, television and the Internet connect us and allow us to know pretty much everything about the candidate. I doubt the small states are less informed than big states.

The electoral college doesn’t solve the problem of attention given by candidates, and in fact swing states would be, I think, almost eliminated if the electoral college was done away with. Further, the problem of small states not getting visited or paid attention to would be remedied, because when you are getting percentages of votes from states rather than all their electoral votes, even small states matter. You simply can’t win an election visiting only populous states, especially if you’re not getting electoral votes. And the media has made it very easy to get information on candidates, so the fact that a candidate doesn’t spend as much attention on you as other states doesn’t really matter anymore.


#7

I think this video pretty much sums it up.


#8

The Electoral College prevents Civil War, if I ever decide that Civil War is our only chance left to save America then I will support abolishing the Electoral College.

In California State Politics, there is no Electoral College.
The two Population centers (The Bay Area and So-Cal) control the lives of everyone else, they rule us with an iron fist to crush our economies and confiscate our property and other Liberties.

California is filled mostly with cowards so the oppressed just bow down to the Communist’s who rule them and do as they are told but there are many States that will not adopt this “lick your Masters boots” lifestyle. America will not tolerate it if New York and California become the iron fist that tries to crush the rest of the Nation as these two California havens of demons crush the rest of California, the West Coast Cowardice will not spread to the East.


#9

None of the voting history before 1980 matters because the parties had a major shift then.


#10

In today’s world John Kennedy would never have been selected by the current democrat leadership. Kennedy was for lower taxes and he hired minorities.


#11

None of the voting history before 1980 matters because the parties had a major shift then.

:whistle: Political parties are constantly shifty; only individual pols are shiftless. :whistle:


#12

When Hillary was campaigning for U.S. Senator from New York she pomised tha the first thing she would do as Senator was to do away with the Electorial College, like it was a university or something. If course the idiots in New York City ate that up. She never mentioned it again after she won the election.


#13

Majority rule is MOB rule, simple as that.

So yea Owl Hore is hot on shedding the E-College, why not, 12 million illegals who can vote in the US, 100 million on the govt teat, 48 million who do not pay taxes…do the math.

As for Hore not serious, do not believe that for one moment. The US Constitution can be circumvented and in fact its quite easy…had anyone told me this 4 years ago I would have told you no friggin way, but bammy man has done it and continues to do so with the support of Harry Reid and Nancee Pelosi, in fact he has done it very well.

How, stroke of the pen in an EO and yes if after 30 days they become law (when posted to the Federal Register)…ok, constitution breath you say it will go to the SCOTUS. Yea and we know how they rule “unlimited power to tax” so yes Obamacare is a tax and yes you have to buy or be fined.

Not enough you say, then fine you are not reading the EO’s which provide for the POTUS to declare a “national crises” and NO I did NOT say declare martial law, that is still there but the rules have been changed, see his March 2012 EO. That little gem allows him to bring in OUTSIDE (shall we say) enforcers to quell the people, think UNIONS, New Black Panthers etc.

If you think this is so far out there it can’t be, then you got some readin to do…


#14

Majority rule is democracy. Having smaller states have a bigger say in a presidential election A) does not fix the problem it is intended to, B) with a winner-take-all system rather than a district system, encourages focus on swing states, and C) is undemocratic and makes the votes of people who live in populous cities and metropolitan areas have a vote of less worth than others. Essentially we are saying that some votes are more valuable than others.