bicentennial_baby
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-05-08 05:43 PM
Original message |
Poll question: Regarding the Electoral College Votes: Should it be proportional in all 50 states? |
|
As far as I know, only Maine and Nebraska have proportional voting in the Electoral College. Regardless of whether or not you think it should be abolished entirely...What do you think?
|
niyad
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-05-08 05:48 PM
Response to Original message |
1. other. it should be abolished entirely. |
Taverner
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-05-08 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
It should be popular vote
And the "no religious test" clause should be heeded.
|
elocs
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-05-08 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
7. Had Kerry won the electoral vote, but lost the popular vote in 2004, |
|
the Republicans would have gone completely nuts (payback for 2000 would have been a bitch, though) and we would be well on our way to having a Constitutional amendment to do away with the electoral college.
|
Lebam in LA
(717 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-05-08 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
Get rid of it. Count every vote and the one with most votes, WINS
|
notesdev
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-05-08 05:50 PM
Response to Original message |
|
has the right to make that decision for itself.
|
Hydra
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-05-08 05:50 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Then it should be proportional.
I'm in favor of doing away with it- my vote is worthless in my state. Nothing in the heavens or hell will ever make it a blue state.
|
Richardo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-05-08 05:50 PM
Response to Original message |
4. Whichever it is, it should be the same in all states. |
aquart
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-05-08 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
12. Which is why it was dealt with in the constitution and not your state legislature. |
BalancedGoat
(255 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-05-08 05:52 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Only if all states switch over at the same time. |
|
I remember republicans in California pushing for this so as to kill our chances of ever electing a democratic president.
|
bicentennial_baby
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-05-08 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
8. Yeah, Sniffa was just talking about that...I agree |
aquart
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-05-08 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
10. And how did they plan to amend the federal constitution? |
BalancedGoat
(255 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-05-08 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
|
I'm not familier with a clause that mandates winner takes all.
|
Firespirit
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-05-08 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
I support keeping the electoral vote and keeping the system for determining how many votes a state gets -- unpopular position on DU, I know. If we abolished it, then candidates would not ever campaign in small states, so I'm in favor of giving small states a handicap by means of the EV. However, there is no incentive to GOTV in deep red states unless there is a competitive down-ballot race. The winner-take-all system sucks if you live in a partisan state. For the 50-state strategy, I think the best system is an electoral vote system with proportional allocation of a state's votes.
|
aquart
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-05-08 06:05 PM
Response to Original message |
9. No, dear. The whole point was not to be. |
|
Does no one study history? This is a federation of states. The electoral college prevents the large populous states riding roughshod over the less-populated states.
And the point is MOOT. It can only be changed by constitutional amendment and you won't get one.
So can we get on to issues we can affect?
|
bicentennial_baby
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-05-08 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
13. Can I ask a question? |
|
And don't call me "dear", please.
|
jody
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-05-08 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
16. The electoral college protects states rights by giving each state 2 votes for each senator plus one |
|
for each congressperson.
I see nothing wrong with the procedures used by ME/NE, selecting one elector within each congressional district by popular vote, and selecting the remaining two electors by the aggregate, statewide popular vote.
|
Bluebear
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-05-08 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
17. 'Does no one study history?' - - No, we're all uneducated dolts. |
jody
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-05-08 06:06 PM
Response to Original message |
11. I oppose the winner-takes-all method used by 48 states. ME/NE have it right. n/t |
MiniMe
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-05-08 06:17 PM
Response to Original message |
19. Only if it is in all states. California tried it to add republican EC votes |
|
It failed as it should have. Unless you are doing states like Texas, Florida, etc the same way it gives the party who usually loses the state a distinct advantage. In California's case, a republican advantage. In Texas's case, it would give a dem advantage. So I would say that its fine if it is in all states, but otherwise I don't think it is good.
|
jody
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-05-08 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #19 |
21. I agree re Repug activities in CA but IMO it's more democratic to use ME/NE procedure. n/t |
MiniMe
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-05-08 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #21 |
22. Agreed, but all states would have to switch at the same time |
|
which makes it unlikely that it would happen
|
Spike89
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-05-08 06:25 PM
Response to Original message |
20. It has a valid reason |
|
Smaller, less populated states need protection from the larger states. It's true that little states wouldn't get visits during campaigns, but that is really a trivial concern in comparison to some of the other dangers. That little bit of power does help restrain politicians from raiding the small states (alienating a small voting block) to serve a big state. It may not have as much relevance as it once did on the east coast, but in the west this is still a huge concern. States should be free to dilute their own importance by going proportional, but they shouldn't be forced to.
|
rocktivity
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jun-06-08 09:51 AM
Response to Original message |
23. Either make it porportional for all 50 states or get rid of it altogether |
|
It makes as much sense of some states recognizing gay marriage and not others.
:headbang: rocknation
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Mon May 06th 2024, 07:18 PM
Response to Original message |