Jump to content


Photo

Fuck The Electoral College

...and fuck Bush, too.

13 replies to this topic

#1 Grinch

Grinch

    Member

  • Members
  • 642 posts

Posted 06 November 2004 - 08:41 PM

I have been wanting to vent this for weeks, but here:

The Electoral College fucking sucks. Here's a history lesson: The US presidency vote used to be a popular voting system. However, the southern states, having large amounts of slaves, got very little representation because only about 50% of the population were whites, and only 20% could actually vote. Hence, the U.S government made all slaves 3/5 of a person and made the Electoral College (in which a number of Electoral Votes were given to a state depending on the population). This means that for every two slaves, the southern states got a little more than another person. This is the true reason the Electoral College was created.

Slavery ended over 100 years ago. Everybody is a citizen now, so why do we still have it? The country's election should be based on what the citizens want, not some shitty point system. The governor, mayor, senator, and all other votes excluding the presidency are ALL based on popular vote, so why isn't the presidential election? If things were they way they're supposed to be, Al Gore would've been president in 2000, and we wouldn't have had to deal with four years of stupidity and four years ahead. That's right, for those who don't know, Gore received 50,996,116 votes and Bush received 50,456,169 in the 2000 election. Can anybody explain to me when over 300,000 Americans vote for someone else, and the other wins based on some fucking points?

I'm fucking pissed at America right now. I love my country, but fuck the government, fuck the electoral college, and fuck George W. Bush.
  • 0
Webmaster of Nerf World

Previously mrgrinch_nm!

#2 Alexthebeast

Alexthebeast

    Member

  • Members
  • 728 posts

Posted 06 November 2004 - 10:02 PM

We all know what happened 4 years ago. Havent you finished your whining yet? I know gore hasn't. I admire kerry for not throwing a pussy fit like big gay al.

-Here's the thing.
-The EC is here.
-Bush is president.
-He would have been prez by popular this time around, he was actually the first president with a majority (meaning more than 50%) of the vote since the 70s.
-Get used to it, stop your fucking whing unless you have a point other than "The government and how it runs Sucks"
  • 0
<Fooz> In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penisses, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship.

#3 cxwq

cxwq

    Member

  • Founders
  • 3,634 posts

Posted 06 November 2004 - 10:22 PM

-He would have been prez by popular this time around, he was actually the first president with a majority (meaning more than 50%) of the vote since the 70s.

1980, 1984, 1988.
  • 0
<meta name="cxwq" content="mostly water">

#4 Grinch

Grinch

    Member

  • Members
  • 642 posts

Posted 07 November 2004 - 01:21 AM

he was actually the first president with a majority (meaning more than 50%)

Dude, Reagan won 54,000 in, like C said, the 1984 election.
  • 0
Webmaster of Nerf World

Previously mrgrinch_nm!

#5 The Infinite Shindig

The Infinite Shindig

    Arma-what-now?

  • Contributors
  • 1,383 posts

Posted 07 November 2004 - 10:10 AM

Has anyone ever considered why the Electoral College still has meaning? I can understand why you may be mad that an election comes down to a few battleground states, and the people of those states have "votes that count more." But if you would put down your boxes of tissues for a few moments, let me lay the counter argument.

The electoral system is in place so very small states (like South Dakota for example) have a proportionally larger voice. States like SD would be greatly outweighed by urban areas and places like California, Texas, New York, Floridia, etc. because those states house the most votes and have heavily populated areas. Without the electoral system, candidates would mostly concentrate in heavily populated areas, because in essence it would be more cost efficient than spending time in sparsely populated states where neighbors are not that close.

The electoral college gives the little states a proportionally larger voice. Since the House of Representatives is based on population, that is a good factor in how candidates would possibly spend their time without the college. Again, cost effective campaigning would be most effective. On the other hand, the EC (I'm getting lazy) includes Senate numbers to states value. This gives small states where there are actually less House members than Senators, to have a larger voice percentage wise. Before that addition that may have had 1/435 say in the country (approximately since it's based on population). Simple math would imply that a popular vote would make a small state worh .2% on the national scale! In the end, it gives a larger say to the small states and thus in a close election makes them much more valuable.

Edit:
As I mentioned before, heavily populated areas would be given much of the political weight. This would mean that much of their vote would dominate Presidential campaigns. The EC is meant to try and equalize the say of the heavily populated coasts and the sparsely populated Mid-West. This prevents regional movements from dominating the entire country, and in essence is a safe guard against mob rule. The EC also adds stability to our government. It mandates a founded movement throughout much of the country before a "radical" third party could become a national power. Now I am not saying that third parties are always a bad thing, but that was the intent of the Founding Father's.

That's the best argument I can muster at 10 AM on a Sunday morning. Ugh

Edited by The Infinite Shindig, 07 November 2004 - 10:17 AM.

  • 0
Shindig of the Lawn Chair Mafia

<a href="http://www.albinobla.../flash/posting" target="_blank">Posting and You</a>

#6 Fuse

Fuse

    Member

  • Members
  • 343 posts
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 07 November 2004 - 10:55 AM

I agree, I do not like the electoral college system. I voted this year simply because it was the first time I could, but it didnt honestly matter because I live in Georgia. Yeah, I think that sucks. I understand why it's there, but I beleive that a smaller state having 1/435 say is fine if it has 1/435 of the population.

However, the EC really didnt have anything to do with this election. He is your President, so do something more productive than harp on with your beloved four-letter word.
  • 0
Death is nothing, but to live defeated and inglorious is to die daily.

#7 Evil

Evil

    Fucking Copout

  • Members
  • 1,156 posts

Posted 07 November 2004 - 12:46 PM

Yea, keep crying about it, that seems to be the Democrat strategy for victory nowadays anyway. When you get around to growing up, you'll remember that 4 years ago doesn't matter now, and that Bush won by 3.5 million votes this time around (thus he won the popular vote, expelling any notion of an unfair/faulty 2004 election). Good luck with the Luvs - I've heard good things about them.

Edited by Evil, 07 November 2004 - 07:21 PM.

  • 0
2007 Great American GoreFest Champion (Aug. 4, Apoc)

#8 JSkater

JSkater

    Member

  • Members
  • 344 posts

Posted 07 November 2004 - 01:39 PM

Good luck with the Luvs - I've heard good things about them.

Fucking ouch.
  • 0
QUOTE(Arcanis)
When I insert a dick, nothing happens.

Why dont you have anything to drink!?
Choose one, making you better feeling!

#9 IronRhino

IronRhino

    Member

  • Members
  • 363 posts

Posted 07 November 2004 - 03:01 PM

If Al Gore had won four years ago, we'd be way worse off. Wait a second, I can't prove that. Let me start over again.

If Al Gore had won four years ago, we'd be way better off. Wait a second, I can't prove that either.

Hmm, I guess what everyone thinks would've happened four years ago can't be proven and isn't really a valid argument.

I'm in favor of the EC for the reasons Shindig stated. Even if it was created to give Southern States votes for its slaves, nowadays it serves a good regulator to keep one region from ruling the vote.

Bush won in both votes this time around. Deal with it.
  • 0
She never told me she was a mime

Check out Foam Fortress

#10 Groove

Groove

    Certified Badass

  • Founders
  • 1,673 posts
  • Fucks Given:0
  • Location:Irvine
  • State:California
  • Country:United States

Posted 07 November 2004 - 03:21 PM

Good luck with the Luvs - I've heard good things about them.

Fucking ouch.

Shit, that's definitely premium sig material right there.
  • 0

"Too close for missiles, I'm switchin' to guns"


#11 TimberwolfCY

TimberwolfCY

    Member

  • Members
  • 249 posts
  • Location:Warrensburg/KC, MO &amp; St. Louis, MO

Posted 07 November 2004 - 03:32 PM

I like having the electoral college, I just don't like the way it is implemented. As I've stated in other topics, I think that a proportional system should be implemented, rather than the "winner-take-all" thing: and not just for presidential elections, for all elections; it would greatly open up the political process to third parties and help balance the two primary parties and offer a third choice if the other two are identical, not to mention letting in some fresh blood (which I believe we direly need). I wish Kerry had won, but apparently the vast majority of people are more concerned with religion and homophobia than they are with the fact that they are having their sons and daughters sent to die in Vietnam I-I-I mean the dunes of Iraq and that we are losing jobs left and right...but damnit we have plenty of construction and hotel jobs to throw around. Oh well, I'm thanking God right now I have diabetes so I can't get drafted, lol.
  • 0
"Denial is the most predictable of all human responses. But, rest assured, this will be the sixth time we have destroyed it, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it." - The Architect, The Matrix: Reloaded

TimberwolfCY
of NH, NHQ, NO, NC

#12 merlinski

merlinski

    Member

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 07 November 2004 - 04:56 PM

Everyone knows that the electoral college was created to give small states more representation. But can anyone tell me, why do small states deserve more representation? If you live in Rhode Island or Montana, why do you deserve proportionally more sway in this government than someone from California or New York?

It really saddens me that the entire fucking middle of this country lets abortion and gays dictate how they vote instead of looking at the more important issues. The Republicans win because they can divide the country on those two issues, because they know that if people looked at the things that are actually fucking important in this country, they wouldn't have a prayer.
  • 0

#13 Lemmypoo

Lemmypoo

    Member

  • Members
  • 105 posts

Posted 07 November 2004 - 06:51 PM

I dunno if we want to throw it away. for one that requires a constitutional ammendment.

HOWEVER! The states can ammend their own elector system similar to Colorado and Maine and switch to the "District Method." (Jesus fucking Christ my feet stink)

Lookie here if you don't know what I'm talking about:

http://www.electionr...s/ec/reform.htm
  • 0
Conner MacManus: Jesus! He brought a six-shooter!

Murphy MacManus: There were nine of them, you retard! What were you going to do with the last three, laugh them to death? Funny man?

-brothers Macmanus, Boondock Saints

#14 cxwq

cxwq

    Member

  • Founders
  • 3,634 posts

Posted 08 November 2004 - 01:18 PM

why do small states deserve more representation? If you live in Rhode Island or Montana, why do you deserve proportionally more sway in this government than someone from California or New York?

Precisely.

Why does a Wyoming resident get four times the vote I do? It doesn't matter why we had the EC, I still haven't heard a reasonable argument for why we have it today.

Do you really think that because Bush is forced to campaign in some 3-vote states that he is more likely to represent them? Is there still some antiquated notion that people get a better idea of who to vote for when they attend those lame red or blue ticket required campaign rallies? Dump the EC and spend more time thinking about campaign finance reform and fair media coverage.
  • 0
<meta name="cxwq" content="mostly water">


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users