Should everybody be allowed to vote?

[AxleIke]

Hmm...That isn't the case here. You're votes are counted for the things you vote on, and the ones you don't are not. CA must have some funky ass rules.

[fustercluck]

How would we assure that only qualified individuals voted if an online ballot were to be cast?

How would insure that hackers didn't steal an election?

What if the internet goes catastrophically down during or before the election?

Without a physical ballot, how does one challenge results?


If you don't understand the value of the electoral college, perhaps some individual due diligence would suffice rather than scrapping the constitution. (the last comment was not directed toward any particular individual).

I've read exasperated comments about the existence of the electoral college before, but when the reason for it is discovered, usually those opposed become advocates of the process...unless they are otherwise conflicted.

[Bob98SR5]

yeah id have to agree that the internet is not secure enough to assure that there wont be massive fraud. if credit card companies and banks cannot secure their databases from hacking, then i am sure that the govt cannot either. jsut my opinion

[AxleIke]

Fuster, I agree, and disagree.

The electoral college was devised at a time when information took days to weeks to travel between places, where today, it takes only seconds.

The electoral college, while generally sticking to the popular vote, does not have to. This was designed because at the time, it was a real threat that some crazy lunatic could convince back woods country bumpkins that he was a viable candidate, and they'd never find out different. The thought was, the electoral college would erase that problem, because they were informed and educated, they could ensure that some total wacko wasn't elected. (for those who think a whacko can't get popular support, I invite you to look into how Hitler came to power)

While I agree that there is still a VERY real possibility of some whacko getting elected (some might say it's happened on more than one occasion), in today's current election pandemonium, I would argue that it is impossible for any fringe candidates to be elected without SERIOUS media scrutiny, and hundreds of thousands of reports being written about them. Personally, I'd argue that it is impossible for fringe candidates to be elected at all, but that's a different story.

My point is that I believe the electoral college system, as spelled out in the constitution, is antiquated, and needs revision. If 50.1% of my state voted for a democrat, that isn't really fair to the other 49.9. Even though they lose either way, let it em be heard.

On the other hand, while it pains me to say it, since I have a very good friend who may chance across this and is Libertarian, I'm satisfied by the fact that the current system allows no libertarians to ever make it into the counting.

[fustercluck]

My point is that I believe the electoral college system, as spelled out in the constitution, is antiquated, and needs revision. If 50.1% of my state voted for a democrat, that isn't really fair to the other 49.9. Even though they lose either way, let it em be heard.

Wouldn't that be a popular vote?

[fustercluck]

While Ike's description of the electoral college may be attractive, let's understand that the purpose of the college was to level the field so that more populous states did not effectively run dictatorily over less populated states. Part of the bargain for becoming a union over remaining individual and sovreign states was that each state would bear equal sway in federal elections. No state could dominate the rest by virtue of population.

Now some would say that a popular vote should rule the day. How popular was slavery at one point in this nation?

[fustercluck]

How do states determine which candidate(s) get their Electoral College votes?

This is determined by the individual state. Remember the whole purpose of the Electoral College in the first place was to let the states cast their votes for the presidency. Therefore the states must be allowed to cast the votes in any way they see fit to any candidate they wish. In 48 states and Washington, D.C. all electoral votes are cast for the candidate who wins the popular vote. Maine and Nebraska allow their electoral votes to be given to the candidate who wins each of their districts (Maine 2, Nebraska 3). Then the other two votes are given to the candidate who wins the popular vote. This system seems to work remarkably well, and even the anti-Electoral College liberals find very little to argue against this arrangement.

It should be known that the most popular argument against the Electoral College system in this country is against casting all state electoral votes for the candidate who wins by the slightest of margins in the state. Those that consider this a flaw in the system should not blame this on the Electoral College but on the individual states. If you would like for this to be changed in your state, you should contact your state government representatives. Keep in mind that the smaller states tend to favor a "winner-take-all" system because it maximizes the state's voice in the electorate. When a state divides its votes among two or more candidates, its voice is also divided and it loses power.
http://www.maitreg.com/politics/arti...ralcollege.asp

[Texas Jim]

Trying to play the Patriotism card to make one feel guilty about not voting won't work, simply because the two don't go hand and foot. The best part about our system is we are allowed to choose and I chose not to participate in our corrupt government.

Give me the money to buy and island and I'd be more than happy to leave

as for using dead soldiers in an attempt to make one feel guilty....SHAME ON YOU

you might as well give up offroading, since your using environmentalist type tactics in an attempt to link unrelated issues.

Our voting system is woefully flawed, until a change is made why should I waste my time to just not have my vote counted?

Just hold on a second here Pilgrim!! This has absolutely nothing to do with using environmentalist tactics!! Do you really think I care if you choose to not vote!! Don't flatter yourself so much!! I am stating the reasons I go and vote!!!

The great thing about this country Bruce, is that those dead soldiers died for your right to not vote also!! What you feel and how you feel about voting is your right!!

I am and did simply state as to why I vote!! You are stating that the system is flawed and you choose to not vote because of that!! Don't accuse me of trying to belittle the reason you choose not to vote!!

I am not your enemy and I am not going to give you the money to buy your own island. You live in a country that allows you to have your own opinion of why you do not vote!! I respect that and would also defend that.

Bruce that is why it is called FREEDOM!!! You have the right to feel the way you do about voting as well as anybody here does. I agree that the system is full of flaws!!! I however feel that if I do not vote that I am just giving up!! I do not choose to do such!!

Do you know right now that Habeas Corpus has failed to pass in congress right now?

Right now if the federal government decides to just go and pick you up, They can hold you indefinitely without charging you with any crime!!! You could die in jail not knowing why you are there in the first place!! No trial, No lawyer, You have no rights!! You are just being held, till someone decides you are no longer a use to them!!! Talk about how Hitler came to power!!

This is just the beginning of a very slippery slope!! This is how the creeps start taking your rights away!! If you do not vote; (which I still say is your right!) You are doing exactally what the fear mongers want you to do!!!

Unless you just want to start a revelution? and if you do PM me! TJ

[fustercluck]

Well they can hab my corpus.....it's old and baggy anyway.

[AxleIke]

But the electoral college does not level the field of populous vs unpopulous states. Each state gets the same electoral votes as they have congressmen (or women). And congressmen are determined by population. California gets tons of attention and carries far more weight than wyoming.

Election math aside, its just not fair to the issues. Lets continue with my wyoming/california example. Candidates will bend over and take it up the ass for california, it has like 29 something electoral votes. They will cater to all sorts of CA issues, from agriculture to computer to port management to power alternatives. I doubt that they stop more than once, if at all, in wyoming. If Wyomings One vote suddenly transfered into 400,000, then they might try a bit harder. Probably not much, but maybe a little.