Polls

[TwistedCU]

It seems as though we could have a repeat of what happened 4 years ago, where Bush won the electoral votes, but Gore had the majority of the popular vote. This graph uses averages of all the major polling organizations:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/RCP_Electoral_Count_Chart.html

Notice how Kerry leads the States with the major cities (few exceptions) and Bush leads pretty much everywhere else.

This brings to question the electoral vote system and it's purpose. The idea was that states without the larger populus would be better represented in a close race. In this situation, it seems effective, but is it a true representation of the overall will of the people? Tough to say yes when the popular vote could dispute it.

This proves to be another interesting election.

 

[90Xjay]

I think the electoral college is just as right now as it was when it was introduced. Without it, New York and California could choose our president every time. How representative would that be to someone in South Dakota?

 

[Junkpile]

It's because people in California and New York don't deserve to have their vote count as much as normal people :lol:
Just kidding.....don't sick the PC posse on me.

 

[LadyJeepFreak]

TC

I have been hearing alot on the news about the electoral votes myself. I think this is all a reminder that now its more important than ever for every single eligible american to vote every single election. This one is going to be as close as last one.

Lady

 

[Junkpile]

I think this is all a reminder that now its more important than ever for every single eligible american to vote every single election. This one is going to be as close as last one.

I understand the concept there, but I have to disagree. I'll be honest and say that I hope people who don't agree with me don't even show up at the polls.
Going deeper than that though, you have to look at some of these silly voter programs. Take MTV's "rock the vote" crap. What do you think the chances are that the majority of people receiving that message are informed on the issues? I think a better message to send would be: Any American who cared enough to pay attention and educate themselves should go vote.
In local elections in this area, we always have people who volunteer to go around and pick up people who have no way to get to the polls. That's fine.....the part where they show up with known drug addicts, prostitutes, and people who don't even know the candidates names, is the part that bothers me. Are we really so.....??????.....that we feel the need to tell these people that their vote is important? Do you want them deciding your future?

I'm not the biggest fan of Sean Hannity, but there is a very interesting part of his show where he asks people off the streets political questions. Alot of these people don't even know the vice presidents name.....I would really prefer it if these people didn't vote.

 

[TwistedCU]

MTV's "rock the vote" crap.

Crap is putting it mildly.

check the "Draft" scare tactic on their homepage:
http://www.rockthevote.com/home.php

 

[Tug-n-pull]

Sad so many do not know and or care who is running and who to vote for and for what reason but, It is a right of every adult person with the lable of American in good standing to be able to vote. For you republicans look at the bright side, The uninformed are going to vote for Bush rather than Kerry cause chances are the vote will be in ABC order and they will vote for the name on top of the list to keep from reading the whole list. hehehe That just sounds funny the uninformed voteing for Bush!!! tug

 

[TwistedCU]

I do not wish for anyone to not vote, but the truth is there is so much garbage in the papers and media about who looks better, etc.

SO with 3 debates we are to draw our conclusion of who will best fill the position. 3 debates most voters did not even watch. 3 debates that had both candidates tossing out worthless statistics and empty promises.

3 debates that the media, instead of fact checking the statistics and pointing out inconsistancies, focused on attitude, "presidential presence", and the like.

Oh yeah it's gonna be interesting.

 

[Bounty__Hunter]

In local elections in this area, we always have people who volunteer to go around and pick up people who have no way to get to the polls. That's fine.....the part where they show up with known drug addicts, prostitutes, and people who don't even know the candidates names, is the part that bothers me.

And do you think these uninformed voters aren't influenced by those picking them up and taking them to the polls?

How do these people vote if they're likely not even registered?

 

[TwistedCU]

They do that here, too. They pick up the homeless, buy them lunch at McDonalds and tell them who to vote for. That's freedom baby!

 

[john_tara4]

About the electoral college. I think the representation offered is very important. As someone said before, Kerry and most previous Democrats are supported by major cities. Of course!! Those cities are filled with low income Americans, breeding like rabbits, and dependant upon government assistance. If we didn't have electoral votes, the "democraps" would undoubtedly win every time. They would increase their pandering to the masses and erect policies to ensure their reelection. Without the electoral college, our future would be decided by those who feel they deseerve everything we have without offering anything to society. Imagine having to sell your Jeep to put someone on welfare which would help them better afford their crack habbit. :evil:

 

[Saurian]

I must admit, I'm still torn on the whole electoral college system that we have... I think that, with the system that we have in place right now regarding how the candidates try to get elected, it is the only way for states with a lesser population to get their vote across, but I still don't totally agree with it... I think that, if it was eliminated, the candidates would have to do a lot more than just trying to win a state, they'd have to try and win the popular vote which, as we know, is a very different thing.

But then again, as many have mentioned, the public just does not seem to get as informed as they used to be, which is what makes the system work. Television advertising... Put a commercial on in Michigan that you're gonna protect the Great Lakes at no cost to the taxpayer, put a commercial on in Nevada that monies from Las Vegas are going to cut taxes in half, and put a commercial on in California proclaiming an end to both high gas prices, and the power shortages, and you're gonna win those states in the electoral vote... But if you had to count on the popular vote, it would be a lot more different, and a lot harder to tell the public what they want to hear...

I don't know, just rambling, I guess... Basically, I think that with the technology that we have, a popular-vote election would not be at all hard, and would be preferable, but only based on informed voters, which, in general, we don't have...

 

[LadyJeepFreak]

:shock: :shock:

 

[90Xjay]

I still think the Electoral College is the way to go.
If you complain about the "Popular Vote", just remember, in order for a candiate to win a state, he must win that state's "Popular Vote"
After and only after he wins a states "Popular Vote" does the electors cast their votes for that candiate.

In addition, the number of electoral votes each state gets is determined by "Population" numbers collected by the Census takers. A state gets one vote for each Congressional district, plus one vote each for each Senator(2 per state)

Now, at least two states have changed the way it cast it's electoral votes. In Maine and Nebraska the only the two Senatoral votes go to the popular vote winner. The rest of the states votes go according to which candiates won each single Congressional Disctrict. IF there was a change in the way the Electoral College operates, I would be most for that way of doing things.

Our voting systems are not perfect for sure and they do change from time to time, just think, before 1920, you did not even elect your state Senators, they were appointed by your state legislator. Although I think most Senators are so out of touch with there people it is pathetic. At least with your Congressman, you have a better chance to meet and influence them through local offices.

 

[TwistedCU]

I think that with the technology that we have, a popular-vote election would not be at all hard, and would be preferable, but only based on informed voters

:shock: :shock:

Yeah, WOW. Like I said before I would not wish anyone not to vote.
Who is to say what an "informed" voter is. All anyone can do is toss out their policies, views, opinions, etc and hope people agree or convince you otherwise.


Well I am for the electoral college. My vote for Bush here in Maryland will be eliminated, as the likelyhood of Bush winning Maryland is about as good as (sadly) Boston's chance of coming back against the Yankees. Even still I think it is the fairest way for a well represented consensus of the will of our countrymen (meant in a unisex manner there).

I just wanted to see everybody's take on it.

 

[mingez]

The Electoral College is an antiquated system decided on because of our technical inablity (at the time) to tally votes nation wide, and fear of demagogue dominance. When it was put into place, up to the minute news and information wasn't readily available. It falters because if you want to accurately depict the opinion of all US citizens, then a "Winner takes all" system is just silly.

1 person = 1 vote. Simple as that? No. The biggest fear of popular vote is geographical and cultural dominance of one area over another. If they could re-align the system, so as to base a electorate vote based on a smaller fraction of geography, then it would remedy the "California would have too much say in the election" arguement. Aside from that, I haven't heard a single argument for the Electoral College Process that makes any logical sense, and I wish we could amend this ridiculous process.

If a candidate wins CA, he gets all 55 electoral votes. Even if the difference in popular vote in that state is 49.9% vs. 51.1%. How can anyone consider that a reflection of reality?
So, if Bush gets 4,500,000 votes and Kerry gets 4,500,001 then all 55 votes go to Kerry. That's just plain stupidity.

I think the electoral college is just as right now as it was when it was introduced. Without it, New York and California could choose our president every time. How representative would that be to someone in South Dakota?

Wha? I understand why the notion of having candidates concentrating their campaigns in heavily populated areas is bad, but as I said above, a more county, district or area-based system would remedy that.

I am 1 guy. And my vote, whether I live in Texas or Wyoming should count as 1 vote. Electoral college renders a vote unrepresented if your candidate loses that state by one vote.

I suppose my biggest problem with the system is that it makes it difficult for third parties to get in the door. The biggest blocker is the "winner take all" rule which means you have to win an election SOMEWHERE to get into the game. With electoral college, we are doomed to have a 2 party system forever. And I think we'd all agree that wouldn't be a good thing. :wink:

 

[Tug-n-pull]

I agree with Mingez on tis one. One vote sould be counted as one vote. Every vote sould be counted and every vote should count. This the only way to get a real election for and of the people. tug

 

[TwistedCU]

I don't think it is antiquated, but agree that some modification to the sysytem could be beneficial.

Maybe the states should retain their # of electoral votes, but be able to decide for themselves if they want a statewide popular vote to decide or if they want to district areas and split the votes.

The fed could allot the votes, but the states could decide how to use them.

I'd be for that.

 

[Sparky-Watts]

Yeah, I gotta go with Tug and Mingez on this one, too. Being from Kansas, my vote has really never counted. None of the candidates came here to campaign because Bush knew he'd take the state, so he didn't bother, Kerry knew he'd lose the state so it was a waste of his time to stop here.......but my vote is still MY vote, dammit!!

 

[Saurian]

suppose my biggest problem with the system is that it makes it difficult for third parties to get in the door. The biggest blocker is the "winner take all" rule which means you have to win an election SOMEWHERE to get into the game. With electoral college, we are doomed to have a 2 party system forever. And I think we'd all agree that wouldn't be a good thing. :wink:

I totally agree with that statement, it's something I have mulled over for some time. Even if both the major party candidates are awful, even if you vote 3rd party, there is almost not a chance in a blue moon that they are going to even get 1 electoral vote...

Here's a thought... I just wonder, during our election season, with CNN, MSNBC, FOX, WB, NBC, CBS, etc... etc... pushing the HE IS EVIL AND WILL RUIN THIS COUNTRY/HE IS EVIL AND HAS ALREADY RUINED THIS COUNTRY, what do other nations think, as I know that most of our news is worldwide these days... Any International Jeepers out there with a take on that situation? Just curious... I never flip on any international news and hear about the lastest ad campaign to oust Queen Elizabeth, or anything like that...

It seems like every election that I have lived through thus far is getting more and more intense, perhaps even vicious... Wonder where the next one will take us...