Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31

Hybrid View

  1. #1 Will the Electoral College Become a Thing of the Past? 
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    8,067
    The Electoral College could be inching closer to extermination as California Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill Monday that would award the state's 55 electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote.

    The bill would take effect only if the states that hold a majority of the 538 electoral votes approve similar legislation. With California's addition, that total now stands at 132, almost 49 percent of the 270 needed.

    Under the electoral college, people don't actually vote for president. They vote for electors, who then vote for president. It was developed as a compromise between those who wanted Congress to elect the president and those who wanted the president elected by popular vote.

    California Assemblyman Democrat Jerry Hill, who introduced the bill, said the change would make California more relevant in presidential elections by forcing candidates to campaign in the state.

    Former Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger twice vetoed previous versions of the bill. At the time, Schwarzenegger said he did not want California's electoral votes awarded to a candidate a majority of the state had not supported.

    Seven states and the District of Columbia have passed similar bills.

    The last person to win the presidency despite losing the popular vote was George W. Bush in 2000.

    http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/20...est=latestnews
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    8,067
    The Libs will do anything and everything they can to ensure the elections are rigged in their favor.
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,269
    Indeed. I am sure you are right. The libs view this move as a move in their direction.

    But wait. Clinton served two terms and never got 50% of the popular vote. He did get the most votes, just not 50%.

    This move may go against liberals.

    And we ain't heard howling if that happens.:)
     

  4. #4  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by TruckerMe View Post
    Indeed. I am sure you are right. The libs view this move as a move in their direction.

    But wait. Clinton served two terms and never got 50% of the popular vote. He did get the most votes, just not 50%.

    This move may go against liberals.

    And we ain't heard howling if that happens.:)
    A majority is not necessarily "greater than 50%". If A , B, and C are running for office and A and B each get 30% of the vote, C wins with a majority of 40%.

    Majority simply means the largest group. That's why these people running around saying "White will be the minority in 2050" are so lame. Whites will still be the majority, even if we're only 49% of the population unless the other 51% is one single other group.
     

  5. #5  
    Power CUer noonwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    12,854
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Majority simply means the largest group. That's why these people running around saying "White will be the minority in 2050" are so lame. Whites will still be the majority, even if we're only 49% of the population unless the other 51% is one single other group.


    The people who say that have a very strict definition of "white", and a vested interest in anti-american ideas such as "racial purity". There are so many americans of mixed heritage, and that number grows with each generation, that the concept of race will eventually disappear in this country.
     

  6. #6  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    The people who say that have a very strict definition of "white", and a vested interest in anti-american ideas such as "racial purity". There are so many americans of mixed heritage, and that number grows with each generation, that the concept of race will eventually disappear in this country.
    Very true. Basically to arrive at the 49% figure you have to count every Hispanic, Latino, and Spanish Surnamed American as "nonwhite". And yet, while these people salivate at this idea, we have biracial people asserting their right to identify as either racial component of their heritage, rather than to accept the obvious assignment given them by any given passerby. My dear friend, BTW, is half Filipino and identifies as Caucasian. Yet we have people who consider Mel Martinez and George Prescott Bush "non-white".

    To which I say, "Show me the nonwhite man in this photo":

     

  7. #7  
    Best Bounty Hunter in the Forums fettpett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southwest Michigan (in Exile)
    Posts
    8,757
    I see these bills being taken to court. The only way to change it is through an Amendment. Of course I know people that believe that the EC wasn't originally part of the Constitution
    "Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings..." Patrick Henry
     

  8. #8  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by txradioguy View Post
    The Libs will do anything and everything they can to ensure the elections are rigged in their favor.
    The Electoral College is broken. Congress broke it when it fixed the size of the House in 1910 (or thereabouts) .

    Now, theoretically, Montana's population could dwindle to a thousand people and it would still have three electoral votes, while Florida's population could swell to 30 million and only have an apportioned share of the House seats once the low population states are given their guarantee.

    But it's already creating a situation the Electoral College was NEVER intended to create. It is nothing but a lie that the Electoral College was supposed to protect smaller states. The Founding Fathers do not appear to have imagined a House of fixed size or the inequity that would generate.

    I'm not going to do the math again, because I'm tired of going through this. But the last time I recall doing this, each Electoral Vote in Wyoming represented about 200,000 people, while each EC vote in Florida represented about 775,000 people. That's not right, nor is it as the constitution intended. The constitution intended for Wyoming to have a minimum of one house seat but one for each of about 30,000 people, and for Florida (I am aware that neither of these states was a state during the work of the Founding Fathers) was supposed to have one House seat for every 30,000 people. The only edge for the smaller state was that it would have two Senators regardless of population, and thus three EC votes at a minimum.

    Of course we can't have a House with 10,000 seats, it's too big. But we can use the average of the three smallest states as a baseline, and them allocate seats proportionally to the other states using that baseline. For example, if the average population of the three smallest states is 598,000. So using that as a baseline, Florida would have 33 electors rather than the current 27 and California would have 65 electors rather than the current 55.

    Of course, the most precise way, and the fairest to all states, as well as most cost effective way to apportion the House would be to weight the seats. So if Wyoming has 400,000 people, then their House seat would have a value of "1". If Montana has 600,000 people then its House seat would have a value of "1.5". A state with 800,000 people would get two seats. And so on...
     

  9. #9  
    Best Bounty Hunter in the Forums fettpett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southwest Michigan (in Exile)
    Posts
    8,757
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    The Electoral College is broken. Congress broke it when it fixed the size of the House in 1910 (or thereabouts) .

    Now, theoretically, Montana's population could dwindle to a thousand people and it would still have three electoral votes, while Florida's population could swell to 30 million and only have an apportioned share of the House seats once the low population states are given their guarantee.

    But it's already creating a situation the Electoral College was NEVER intended to create. It is nothing but a lie that the Electoral College was supposed to protect smaller states. The Founding Fathers do not appear to have imagined a House of fixed size or the inequity that would generate.

    I'm not going to do the math again, because I'm tired of going through this. But the last time I recall doing this, each Electoral Vote in Wyoming represented about 200,000 people, while each EC vote in Florida represented about 775,000 people. That's not right, nor is it as the constitution intended. The constitution intended for Wyoming to have a minimum of one house seat but one for each of about 30,000 people, and for Florida (I am aware that neither of these states was a state during the work of the Founding Fathers) was supposed to have one House seat for every 30,000 people. The only edge for the smaller state was that it would have two Senators regardless of population, and thus three EC votes at a minimum.

    Of course we can't have a House with 10,000 seats, it's too big. But we can use the average of the three smallest states as a baseline, and them allocate seats proportionally to the other states using that baseline. For example, if the average population of the three smallest states is 598,000. So using that as a baseline, Florida would have 33 electors rather than the current 27 and California would have 65 electors rather than the current 55.

    Of course, the most precise way, and the fairest to all states, as well as most cost effective way to apportion the House would be to weight the seats. So if Wyoming has 400,000 people, then their House seat would have a value of "1". If Montana has 600,000 people then its House seat would have a value of "1.5". A state with 800,000 people would get two seats. And so on...
    um....what? the EC is and always been based on the number of Representatives and Senators, each states has at lest one Rep and 2 Senators. I do agree that fixing the size of the House causes a lot some issues, but not to the extend that you seem to think it does.
    "Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings..." Patrick Henry
     

  10. #10  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by fettpett View Post
    um....what? the EC is and always been based on the number of Representatives and Senators, each states has at lest one Rep and 2 Senators. I do agree that fixing the size of the House causes a lot some issues, but not to the extend that you seem to think it does.
    When the Electoral College was designed, the size of the House grew every ten years with the new national census. Fixing the size of the House very much affected the function of the Electoral College.
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •