Abolish the electoral college

[TANSTAAFL]

It would also slide more power to high population centers.

How is this? High population centers already have more power due to having more electoral votes. That's why states in the northeast carry 20+ electoral votes each compared to our 9.

Hell, California has 55 electoral votes. Texas has 34. Louisiana 9.

 

[Dishonored]

How is this? High population centers already have more power due to having more electoral votes. That's why states in the northeast carry 20+ electoral votes each compared to our 9.

Hell, California has 55 electoral votes. Texas has 34. Louisiana 9.

But in opposition the weight of a vote per individual is much much lower.
For instance, in the 2012 election Florida had a total of 8,474,179 votes while Louisiana had only 1,999,065.
If you do that math that would show an individual's vote cast in Florida carries about 1/5th the the weight of an individual's vote cast in Florida.
It would take 5 voters in Florida to cast the same vote to be equal to one persons vote here in Louisiana. At least that is how I understand the concept.

But I also don't agree lmao
That this year Obama won 50.01% of Florida's popular vote while Romney won 49.13%.
That is only a .88% difference yet all 29 electoral votes were awarded to Obama and 0 to Romney.

 

[Leonidas]

Could you explain how you got the 1/43rd ratio?

 

[Dishonored]

Sorry that was a typo on my part.
I followed the same arithmetic on the website but used different states and numbers from the most recent election
1,999,065/8,474,179 = .2359 or .236
That would be slightly below .25 of 1/4.
I came up with .2358 using 1/4.24 so since we are talking about votes you cannot have .24 of a vote. Since it requires more than 4 votes i round up to 5. Leaving it to a 5 to 1 ratio.
I don't know where I got the 1/43rd from lol
I must have been reading some other data when I was typing that and lost my train of thought.

you are just like JR, wearing your SVT-Biased glasses. But its only because I'm a douche.

 

[Leonidas]

I thought it might be just a decimal error. Like 4.3. At least by rough guesstimation.

Doesn't Florida have significantly more Electoral votes, hence making individual vote values roughly equivalent? Along the lines of...how many popular votes cast per EC vote.

 

[Dishonored]

I thought it might be just a decimal error. Like 4.3. At least by rough guesstimation.

Doesn't Florida have significantly more Electoral votes, hence making individual vote values roughly equivalent? Along the lines of...how many popular votes cast per EC vote.

That may have been it I honestly don't know but it was wrong if so when I did that. 1/4.24 is pretty damn close.
I'm not positive on your second question as I found nothing on that matter. I would assume not that still does not affect the disparity of the popular vote.
It has been a long time since I dealt with ratios so how I am about to explore this could be very very wrong lol
Fl popular vote is diluted 5/1
But the number of electoral votes puts the state at a 3/1 over La.
Let's do two steps.
5/1*1/3 = 5/3 or 1.666667 for LA vs. FL popular vote compared to electoral vote for each
Now reverse it
1/5*3/1= 3/5 or .6 same idea.
Now 1.66667 - .6 is 1.066667 or 1.1
That would now equal a 1.1/1 ratio of Louisiana to Florida but you cannot have a .1 vote which requires you to say it is 2/1.
It is Close and if this process is correct then yes it almost Equivalent in how much power Florida has as a whole In the presidential election.
Individual votes La wins.
electoral votes Fl wins.
Comparing them both it is still 2/1 of that is right. It could be way off track like I said. I haven't dealt with ratios in a long time.

you are just like JR, wearing your SVT-Biased glasses. But its only because I'm a douche.

 

[03protege]

Some of these are great ideas but my only option to give fact why it should be abolished.
This is a course taught through lsu.

It's going to be hard(/impossible) to find "facts" supporting why it should be abolished considering it has never operated any other way, because of this there is no evidence to support any other system working better than the electoral college. Without this there is nothing factual.

 

[Leonidas]

I can't really argue in favor of abolishing the EC, because I oppose that, for one very good reason (at least in my opinion). As things are now, there are NO national elections, only state and local. Even the presidential election is a state one. One does not actually cast a vote for president, rather for a slate of Electors, who then vote on behalf of the people of the state.

Abolishing the EC would result in an actual national election. I fear that would be the camel's nose under the tent. It would open the door to FAR too much federal intrusion into the electoral process. Nothing good ever results from federal involvement.

That leads me to a possible approach for your paper. I suspect that your instructor might be liberal. So many are. Just a guess, but you'll probably find more compelling argument against abolishment. However, liberals' thought processes are perverse. Simply state all the logical reasons to maintain the status quo as reasons in favor. He/she may well eat up the reverse logic. They often do.

Just a thought. Your mileage may vary.

 

[Dishonored]

I do not think it should be abolished either. It was a very difficult paper to type/write.
Looking for valid arguments when the arguments against it don't make much sense.
It was a "fun" paper. We will see if he likes it.

you are just like JR, wearing your SVT-Biased glasses. But its only because I'm a douche.

 

[SVT]

I'm interested to see how your professor receives your work. Will you update us?

Will you have to debate anyone else in the class about this?

 

[dixiejarhead]

I can't really argue in favor of abolishing the EC, because I oppose that, for one very good reason (at least in my opinion). As things are now, there are NO national elections, only state and local. Even the presidential election is a state one. One does not actually cast a vote for president, rather for a slate of Electors, who then vote on behalf of the people of the state.

Abolishing the EC would result in an actual national election. I fear that would be the camel's nose under the tent. It would open the door to FAR too much federal intrusion into the electoral process. Nothing good ever results from federal involvement.

That leads me to a possible approach for your paper. I suspect that your instructor might be liberal. So many are. Just a guess, but you'll probably find more compelling argument against abolishment. However, liberals' thought processes are perverse. Simply state all the logical reasons to maintain the status quo as reasons in favor. He/she may well eat up the reverse logic. They often do.

Just a thought. Your mileage may vary.

You sir are correct. I would prefer the presidential election be done by the state houses instead of there being a popular election. That would hold the state reps more accountable for their choices to their consituents.

 

[cajun_64]

But in opposition the weight of a vote per individual is much much lower.
For instance, in the 2012 election Florida had a total of 8,474,179 votes while Louisiana had only 1,999,065.
If you do that math that would show an individual's vote cast in Florida carries about 1/5th the the weight of an individual's vote cast in Florida.
It would take 5 voters in Florida to cast the same vote to be equal to one persons vote here in Louisiana. At least that is how I understand the concept.

But I also don't agree lmao
That this year Obama won 50.01% of Florida's popular vote while Romney won 49.13%.
That is only a .88% difference yet all 29 electoral votes were awarded to Obama and 0 to Romney.

Someone winning the election on vote count(and this could be a win by a large margin of votes), can still lose with EC count. Would seem to be the biggest argument against it.

 

[Dishonored]

Someone winning the election on vote count(and this could be a win by a large margin of votes), can still lose with EC count. Would seem to be the biggest argument against it.

It is. That has only happened 4 times in the history of presidential elections.
The most recent being the Al Gore and George Bush election.

you are just like JR, wearing your SVT-Biased glasses. But its only because I'm a douche.

 

[mgrgmr]

Look up the amount of popular votes in each state for the last election. Then divide that number by the number of electoral votes each state has. Basically Cali got 1 electoral vote for every 237,064 votes cast. Louisiana got 1 for every 249,258. Alabama got 1 for every 230,482. This is why I think it is unfair to do it that way. Of course these numbers change every election, but the end result is the same. Everyone's vote is not equal.

I see someone brought this up as well.

So here is another thing. Each state is different on how their electoral votes are done. Some states give all to the majority winner, some split them. Some states even change how they do it.

 

[cajun_64]

Look up the amount of popular votes in each state for the last election. Then divide that number by the number of electoral votes each state has. Basically Cali got 1 electoral vote for every 237,064 votes cast. Louisiana got 1 for every 249,258. Alabama got 1 for every 230,482. This is why I think it is unfair to do it that way. Of course these numbers change every election, but the end result is the same. Everyone's vote is not equal.

I see someone brought this up as well.

So here is another thing. Each state is different on how their electoral votes are done. Some states give all to the majority winner, some split them. Some states even change how they do it.

However, no matter the voter turn out, the EC remains the same


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Mac 1]

Dixiejarhead's first response says it all. The founding fathers of our country debated this thoroughly. They looked at the popular vote, congressionally assigned votes, etc. and came up with the electorial college to prevent the more populated states/areas from controlling all of the country. Like someone said earlier in the conversation, there is no better system. (My two cents).

 

[Nomad.2nd]

Some of these are great ideas but my only option to give fact why it should be abolished.
This is a course taught through lsu.

It was created to deal with communication issues.

It no longer takes weeks to mail a letter, we can have the results within hours through technology.

Ergo: no longer needed. Better living through technology etc.