1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Electoral College Opinion

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by saturneptune, Oct 19, 2012.

  1. saturneptune

    saturneptune New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Ratings:
    +0
    If you support the Electoral College concept now, would your opinion change if Romney wins the popular vote but Obama wins the electoral vote? Not that this is likely, but this year it is possible with the combination of swing states.
     
  2. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Ratings:
    +1
    I have always been for the Electoral College until the other day when I learned that the number of delegates each state is allotted for the EC is determined on the census, which includes illegal aliens. Therefore, I have now changed my opinion and wish we would do away with the EC.
     
  3. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,723
    Ratings:
    +661
    Faith:
    Baptist
    looks like it would take a Constitutional amendment to change the census - so only citizens would be counted to determine representation.
    Lets start contacting our reps
     
  4. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Ratings:
    +182
    Why do we keep having these threads...

    No, granted I don't think he's going to win the EC, the EC is a genius system. It equally distributes the vote across all the states and keeps the population centers from controlling the Presidential elections. All states matter in the EC.
     
  5. saturneptune

    saturneptune New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Ratings:
    +0
    There is nothing in BB rules that compels you to read any thread.
     
  6. ktn4eg

    ktn4eg New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,517
    Ratings:
    +1
    Being the U.S. history buff that I am (MA in History from Austin Peay State Univ., Clarksville,TN, conferred in 1981), you might want to look up "The Disputed Presidential Election of 1876."

    That was a real hum-dinger!! :thumbsup:

    So, why, one may ask, did the "Framers" of the U. S. Constitution ever come up with the EC in the first place?

    I suppose there's more than just one single reason, but basically IMHO at least, the Framers somehow saw the EC as a means for even the states--as states--to have some level of "say-so" in determining who would be (or NOT be) the POTUS.

    Granted, none of the Framers apparently envisioned the development of "partisan" politics that subsequently very rapidly developed during the presidency of George Washington ("Hindsight is ALWAYS 20-20," I guess!) when you had the eventual split between the "Federalists" (nominally headed by Alexander Hamilton) and the "Democratic-Republicans" (nominally headed by Thomas Jefferson), but that's what happened c. 1790, and basically it's been that way ever since.

    As originally concieved by the Framers, the EC was (at least in part) a way to check/balance of what they feared would (and DID!) happen as this nation slowly drifted from that of being a fairly staunch REPUBLIC into that of a DEMOCRACY.

    At least the EC as the Framers hoped it would be, would be one way to at least slow down that trend, because it put into the hands of the individual states, as states (all 57 of them according to the current POTUS anyway ["Just how many 'states' does Kenya have anyway?? H-mm.....'Seven,' you say"??!!??] :smilewinkgrin:).

    And, so now we have what some say is an obsolete part of our Constitution.

    Maybe, but then again, maybe not.

    Things ARE different today, but I'm not thoroughly convinced that in this particular case that they are decidedly better.

    For one thing, today we have the direct election of U.S. Senators as a result of the 17th Amendment, which was only ratified in 1913, less than 100 years ago. And, as we ALL know, that REALLY made the U.S. Senate a much, much better legislative body, now didn't it??!!??

    Back before the 17th Amendment, U.S. Senators were elected by the states' legislative bodies.

    Personally, along with Salty's plan to prohibibit illegal aliens from voting, I'd like to have the "winner-take-all" basis for EC votes changed to a proportional system where which ever POTUS candidate carries that U.S. congresional district, gets that particular district's vote in the EC.
     
    #6 ktn4eg, Oct 20, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 20, 2012
  7. saturneptune

    saturneptune New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Ratings:
    +0
    My personal preference would be a model like Nebraska and Maine, where the Congressional district winner got one vote, and the two Senate votes went to the overall state winner.

    As mentioned elsewhere, every state has the right to determine how electors are chosen, and how they are proportioned. I still think the California proposal that failed to give California's 55 electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote shows how each state could come up with some different standard.

    Another thing that makes Presidential elections unpredictable is faithless electors. If we get a tie, it election normally goes to the House. However, one faithless elector could choose the President. Very few states have laws against such electors.
     
  8. saturneptune

    saturneptune New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Ratings:
    +0
    No kidding, it is a genius system. By the way, for your complaining about being repetative threads on the electoral college, the aspect has never been discussed about each state being allowed to choose how the members of the college are chosen, and how each state awards the votes. It does not have to be by popular vote takes all. Each state could create their own method, so we might have fifty different ways of awarding the electoral college votes. Take that with faithful electors, and it could be quite an event.

    The only reason we think it is stable is because 48 of the 50 states use the same method to elect and award electoral votes, and the other two states are quite similar.
     
  9. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,723
    Ratings:
    +661
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Actually, what I suggested was that non-citizens be counted in the census - illegal, students from foreign countries, ect.
    (and personally I believe a college student should vote in his home district - not where the college is located.

    I do agree with proportional representation - but it should be based on the state-(or Commonwealth) wide vote.
     
  10. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Ratings:
    +127
    Absolutely support the Electoral College as is.

    The President is the President of the the United States of America not president of the amalgamated peoples of the various states. The national popular is and should be meaningless. All that counts is how the people of each state vote for their own electors.

    And every state should determine absolutely how they choose their electors. If they are chosen by a beauty contest or footrace it is the states' choice and so be it.
     
    #10 NaasPreacher (C4K), Oct 20, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 20, 2012
  11. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Ratings:
    +127
    This is only indirectly true. The number of electors are based on congressional representation which in turn is determined by the decennial census.
     
  12. billwald

    billwald New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Ratings:
    +0
    Now that our nation has matured we would be better served by a parliamentary system.
     
  13. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,723
    Ratings:
    +661
    Faith:
    Baptist

    and that census include illegals - so states or commonwealths such as Fla, Tx, Ca will have more than - say N/S Dakota.
     
  14. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Ratings:
    +127
    Hence my statement that it is indirectly true. Sounds like states should be looking for illegals instead of running them off. Think how many representatives (and therefore electors) a state like Arizona could have if they were more illegal friendly!

    Seriously, does anyone have any stats to show how many representatives (and therefore electors) a state has added because of having illegals?
     
  15. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,723
    Ratings:
    +661
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There is about one rep / 700,000 residents - so with about 10 million illegals - that would average out to about 14 reps.


    Then add in legal immigration (not yet citizens) students, foreign military personnel, ect ......


    representation should be based on citizenship - and if we need to change the constitution......
     
  16. InTheLight

    InTheLight Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    17,635
    Ratings:
    +1,953
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Doubtful there are that many illegals actually counted.

    If illegals fill out the Census form they would be included. If illegals are actually polled by door-to-door census takers they would be included. Now, ask yourself--if you were an illegal and the U.S. government comes looking for information on you, are you going to offer it up?
     
  17. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    39,131
    Ratings:
    +2,360
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There have to be many illegals counted as the Census does not discriminate or try to decide who is a legal citizen or not. It just counts people. Period.
     
  18. InTheLight

    InTheLight Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    17,635
    Ratings:
    +1,953
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Sure it "counts" people if you fill out the questionnaire received in the mail. If you are a legal citizen and are harboring illegal immigrants are you going to fill that in on the census questionnaire?

    Similarly, if you have a census worker visit your home are you going to declare that you have several illegal immigrants living in your house?
     
  19. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    39,131
    Ratings:
    +2,360
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You seem to have a lack of information. Illegals rent homes and apartments, have drivers license, go to work day in and day out just like the rest of us. And those in states that do not issue drivers licenses to them well they just travel unlicensed. Either way there is nothing to distinguish illegals from actual citizens to the Census workers. All illegals are counted. Illegals are filling out the questioniares and answering their own doors and speaking to the census workers themselves. They do not need any help.
     
  20. InTheLight

    InTheLight Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    17,635
    Ratings:
    +1,953
    Faith:
    Baptist
    M-kay...

    And you know this...how?
     
Loading...