The W
Views: 178575643
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
18.3.17 2202
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Colorado Considering Scrapping Winner-Take-All Electoral College Votes
This thread has 1 referral leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2(1212 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (24 total)
Downtown Bookie
Morcilla
Level: 58

Posts: 319/653
EXP: 1494001
For next: 83554

Since: 7.4.02
From: USA

Since last post: 2442 days
Last activity: 2131 days
#21 Posted on 18.8.04 1827.28
Reposted on: 18.8.11 1829.02
IMHO reasonable arguments can be made regarding whether the President of the Unites States should be elected by using electoral votes from each state, or by the nationwide popular vote totals. While I have my own views on the subject, I believe that there is a more serious issue that should be addressed. If the U.S. is to continue to use the electoral vote system, then IMHO it should be used without the constitutionally created Electoral College. Quite frankly the concept of using human electors to vote for the President should be eliminated, and eliminated as quickly as possible. I believe that once a state's vote is certified, their electoral votes should automatically be cast for the candidate(s) using whatever system the state has in place (be it winner-take-all, by district, or what-have-you) without the use of the Electoral College. IMHO the continued use of human electors, who are free under the Constitution to vote for whomever they choose, is just asking for trouble. While only a few electors in recent history have cast their votes for a candidate other than the one they were chosen to represent (such as in 1976 (presidentelect.org) when one of Gerald Ford's electors cast his vote for Ronald Reagan, or in 1988 (presidentelect.org) when one of Michael Dukakis's electors cast his vote for Lloyd Bentsen) why continue to have a system in place that allows for a potential catastrophe? Because, believe me, if a Presidential election is ever decided in this century because a group of electors voted for a candidate other than the one to whom they were pledged, the resulting fall out will make the fighting over the 2000 election look like a love-in.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 135

Posts: 3748/4700
EXP: 28678206
For next: 656875

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 4704 days
Last activity: 3158 days
#22 Posted on 18.8.04 1935.02
Reposted on: 18.8.11 1937.43
    Originally posted by Downtown Bookie
    IMHO the continued use of human electors, who are free under the Constitution to vote for whomever they choose, is just asking for trouble.
Some states do restrict their electors by law to the candidates to which they committed.

Incidentally, we should not change this requirement for at least one very good reason. Horace Greeley was the Democratic nominee for President in 1872. He lost the general election, but died before the electors cast their votes. His electoral vote total was spread among four candidates, with the total of his VP candidate, B. Gratz Brown(who finished third overall in the Presidentail vote) was split among eight people.

If all electors were committed, they would be electing potentially a dead President, a dead Vice-President, or both. Imagine the chaos, for example, if under a must-vote system the winning ticket were elected, and then died in a plane crash the next day. A Majority of the other party existed in the House. At that point, you have a ticket winning an election, but a member of the opposite party serves the four year term. At least without a must-vote system, the winning party, under that doomsday scenarion, could coalesce behind a new ticket.
MoeGates
Boudin blanc
Level: 100

Posts: 1685/2353
EXP: 10276958
For next: 77474

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 14 days
Last activity: 7 days
#23 Posted on 18.8.04 2136.23
Reposted on: 18.8.11 2136.24
You wouldn't just vote in the dead guy, and then the V.P-elect would take office?
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 135

Posts: 3750/4700
EXP: 28678206
For next: 656875

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 4704 days
Last activity: 3158 days
#24 Posted on 19.8.04 0646.02
Reposted on: 19.8.11 0647.00
    Originally posted by MoeGates
    You wouldn't just vote in the dead guy, and then the V.P-elect would take office?
If you vote in the VP, you can then select an alternate VP. Otherwise, you have to get it through congress.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Pages: Prev 1 2Thread ahead: I guess this is what the French think about Eurosoc...
Next thread: Retiring GOP congressman breaks ranks on Iraq
Previous thread: Kerry's Ex-girlfriend Website
(1212 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Colorado Considering Scrapping Winner-Take-All Electoral College VotesRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2024 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.184 seconds.