WSB Forum » Politics

(27 posts)

Official "Electoral College Is Bogus" Thread!

  1. In all this hoo-haw about the Electoral College, does anybody even care that the EC itself is a fundamentally anti-democratic institution? If you look into its history, you'll discover that it's a holdover from the eighteenth century, when the electoral system was controlled by aristocrats who believed it was dangerous to let "the mob" elect a President directly.

    But let's set that aside and look at how the EC system operates in the world of today. It's still pretty devious, actually.


    ► If some of these pro-Obama electoral college predictions turn out to be correct (example: Obama 332 to Romney 206), it would suggest that roughly 3 Americans voted for Obama to every 2 who voted for Romney. But that would be wildly incorrect. The EC is therefore a very poor measurement of actual support for each of the candidates.

    ► The EC's winner-takes-all system has resulted in candidates from both major parties spending nearly all their campaign time in the swing states and ignoring everyone else. If voters are supposed to decide based on knowledge of the candidates, how can it be a good thing that those candidates are required to give much more of their time to some voters than others?

    ► The practical effect of the EC system is that votes for the losing candidate are not even counted. So in Washington State, votes for Romney don't matter. In Texas, votes for Obama don't matter. Again: How is that democratic?

    ► I've heard Jay Inslee and other Democrats say (in reference to the proposed I-1185 "supermajority" requirement for raising taxes) that it's WRONG because it effectively gives anti-tax legislators more voting power than pro-tax legislators. I agree with Inslee on that one: Every person should have one vote. So what about those Romney voters in Washington and Obama voters in Texas? Shouldn't they have votes too? Yet, in the final count, they don't even get half a vote, like pro-tax legislators. They get ZERO votes.

    Last, and definitely worst . . .

    ► Some 540,000 more Americans voted for Al Gore than for GW Bush in 2000, yet Bush won the election. That has only happened two other times in history, the last time being over a century ago.

    Posted 3 years ago #         
          un perdedor

              I'm a loser, bay-bay . . .

    [You know the rest.]

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  3. It is a little strange, I will grant you that.

    It gives a little more power to some of the smaller states so that not all the resources are focused on the top-20 markets.

    Also, Bush lost the popular vote because the media initially called Florida for Gore and Republicans west of the Mississippi stayed home in droves because it was "over". In fact, the Florida panhandle - which is in a different time zone(and staunchly conservative) was impacted as well.

    That said - we may very well see the same thing tomorrow night. Romney popular and Obama electoral.

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  4. "Bush lost the popular vote because the media initially called Florida for Gore..."

    Pure speculation on your part with absolutely no facts to back it up. But if it makes you feel better...

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  5. Political scientist Allen Lichtman has a different take on the alignment of the electoral and popular votes. Here's a quote from a recent article...

    "The conventional wisdom, of course, asserts that the Electoral College vote will be decided by a handful of so-called “battleground states.”

    In fact, it is the national popular vote that typically determines the outcomes in the battleground states. Since the turn of the 20th century, the national popular vote has coincided with the Electoral College vote in 27 of 28 elections (96 percent). The only exception occurred in the highly contested and controversial election of 2000.

    Focused spending and organizing in battleground states also yields minimal results, according to a study by political scientist Alan Abramowitz. He found that in 2008, Obama’s huge organizational and spending advantage in 15 battleground states netted him an average increase of just 0.8 percent of the vote above projections based on 2004 election patterns and Obama’s surge in the national popular vote.As goes the popular vote this year, history indicates that the electoral vote will follow, giving Obama another four years in office."

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  6. Here's a map of the candidates' "campaign events" by state. Presumably a campaign event is one where the candidate himself appears. Could be one of the veeps too, I spose:

    (Hit F5 if it doesn't load right)

    As you can see from this map, the grey states get all the love.

    Florida is filet mignon.
    Montana is chopped liver.

    Oh, the candidates did spend some time in their safe places, too. Particularly if those places happened to have lots of big donors in them.

    Phoenix (Romney)
    Seattle (Obama)


    Smitty's comment reminds me of another anti-democratic facet of the elections: "early results" election coverage.

    I'm not sure how much can be done about that. They've stopped doing the exit polls, right? That's a step in the right direction.

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  7. waynster
    Member Profile


    Its strange that we still use the E.C. considering it was designed for a smaller population and a spread out country... and is truly out dated the popular vote is the best way to go....then again as a country we need to get rid of the negative political adds and force them to put in some truth like lets say 99% of what they are saying should be true.....only one could hope....lmao

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  8. The problem with limiting exit polling is this... "Exit polls have historically and throughout the world been used as a check against and rough indicator of the degree of election fraud." (from Wiki) That's the tool that international election observers find to be the best way to test the veracity of elections.

    I agree that it would be cool if the TV stations would not use or disclose them until the election was called but I don't think its a good idea not to have them.

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  9. Smitty..

    "Also, Bush lost the popular vote because the media initially called Florida for Gore and Republicans west of the Mississippi stayed home in droves because it was "over". In fact, the Florida panhandle - which is in a different time zone(and staunchly conservative) was impacted as well."

    now isn't that an interesting rationalization

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  10. Particularly in the panhandle of FL. The media called the state before their polls had about influencing an election.....

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  11. Maybe we should focus on this election. I think many of us agree that there could be some positive changes made to the electoral process. I see a whole lot of red in the flyover states and a lot of blue on the coasts and the NE. So what is fair?

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  12. Note that the blue places are where most of the people live.

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  13. redblack
    Member Profile


    fortunately, dobro, it's where most of the electoral votes are, too.

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  14. kootchman
    Member Profile

    That's an easy fix. Two states apportion the electoral college. Winner take all is a state guideline. Wanna do that in Washington? Not a problem. States can go to representative apportionment. Nothing to stop them. You think Olympia is going to let that happen? Al Gore lost Florida. The left seems to forget that fellah, Ralph Nader. I can assure you, no republicans or conservatives voted for him. Rest assured DBP... there is a fast growing interest in apportioned electoral college vote allocation.

    I would be ok if FOX news announced around noon... "we have a projected winner"... sure would be funny for the next four years. Who would be so stupid to fall for it? Well, those would be the electoral college which is a check on the illiterate and ill informed... that was the purpose of the EC. Y'know the ones that vote for a free cell phone...and can't tell you who their Senators are .. and brother.. we got em.. lots of em.

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  15. Y'know the ones that vote for a free cell phone...and can't tell you who their Senators are .. and brother.. we got em.. lots of em.

    You mean those same folks that get so worked up over the angry tirades of Limbaugh, Beck, Pat Robertson, and the right wing candidates, of the Libs being downright evil moochers, that they'll vote straight tea party preferred ticket?


    Posted 3 years ago #         
  16. [Good dumbass graphic, Mike.]

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  17. Posted 3 years ago #         
  18. kootchman
    Member Profile

    Those are the ones miws.... Pat Robertson? You still using rabbit ears? Beck? He isn't even on the air and hasn't been for over a year. The biscuits and treats are just too enticing.

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  19. kootch..

    "Pat Robertson? You still using rabbit ears? Beck? He isn't even on the air and hasn't been for over a year."

    does that mean you get your news from Limbaugh now?

    even he admits he makes no attempt to be factual. He's just an entertainer ;-> ;->

    ROFLOL.. didn't Limbaugh tell you Beck is still on the air.. on Blaze?

    according to this article he is still very useful to the Teapublicans

    and Pat is still alive and well on the 700 club..
    and might i add.. as offensive as ever.

    What? the Teapublican jungle drums didn't tell you ?

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  20. kootchman
    Member Profile

    Nope. I don't like Limbaugh... he's a Larry O'Donnel (sp?), Rachel Maddow sorta blowhard. Keep telling you.. the TEA Party has one objective.. shrink government and cut spending. We have no position on social issues. Just one issue, trim the size of the suicidal pact... da big government ya love so much. You sure don't know much about the TEA Party... one litmus test gets ya the card... cut government spending. The rest is optional and your own conscience.

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  21. kootchman
    Member Profile

    America Is Two Countries, Not on Speaking Terms
    A Commentary By Michael Barone

    A good summary of where we are... we are no longer engaged in the mutual love fest of yesteryear. "we" are no longer in this together.. cause, "we" means "you" from the left side ... never us. Truth be told, we are living ok without the "us"....

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  22. You still using rabbit ears?

    As a matter of fact, when I still had my apartment, I was using rabbit ears, going back to probably around 2002.

    I gave up cable when even expanded basic became too damn expensive.

    I didn't want to be one of those lazy fat ass libs sitting around flipping through 1,385 channels that I couldn't afford.

    I did, however, get myself one of them fancy digital converters, before the change-over was mandatory.

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  23. kootch..

    we could agree to cut government spending if you are in favor of cutting all government spending and tax cuts to big businesses that are not employing mostly American workers..
    or at least workers in America.

    I would agree to a cap on military expenditures..
    and a cessation of all expenditures on private contractors for military support and overseas govt agency security..

    that one would be a sacrifice for me...
    my brother would be out of a job..
    but I am sure he would find something else to do with his retirement

    wanna play the let's spend our money more wisely game with me?

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  24. kootch..

    "A good summary of where we are."

    i don't think so...

    I think the America that works together to solve problems is still there...
    buried under the my way or the hiway brainwashing they have been getting...

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  25. redblack
    Member Profile


    Keep telling you.. the TEA Party has one objective.. shrink government and cut spending.

    unless you're talking about bombs and other people's uteri, of course.

    in that case, government can't spend enough.

    can i get an "amen?"

    you people don't have any altruism whatsoever, so quit pretending that you do. that's our bailiwick.

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  26. Posted 3 years ago #         
  27. I have been thinking about this altruism thing

    and i don't think Redblack is right on this one

    the amount of charitable giving that Republican's report proves some concern for the welfare of others...

    where the difference in attitude occurs is that Republicans believe in private institutionalized charity...

    whereas democrats are more likely to believe in rights ... including the right to give their assistance directly.. outside the bounds of institutionalized giving.

    both are basically altruistic viewpoints in that both show concern for the welfare of others...

    there is a huge difference in what the two parties view as basic rights...
    and who they think should have them...

    Posted 3 years ago #         

RSS feed for this topic


You must log in to post.

All contents copyright 2005-2015, A Drink of Water and a Story Interactive. Here's how to contact us.
Entries and comments feeds. ^Top^