View Single Post
Old 10-27-2008, 10:44 AM   #24
gemini
 
gemini's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,842
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CottonCandyCurls View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by gemini View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedCatWaves View Post
If you want the east and west coasts of the country to decide elections, then go ahead and get rid of the electoral college and go with popular vote. Since most liberals live on the coasts, including me, I'd be all for it.

I do think the electoral college makes it impossible for any third party candidates to ever get a fair chance, but I have no clue how to fix it. Apparently no one else does either.

I wonder if there could be a way to balance electoral votes with popular votes--maybe have a point system where the total popular vote counts for 50% of the total "points" and the state electoral college totals account for the other 50?

I agree with Amanda that the VP should receive votes too. I know some states have governor and Lt. governor elected separately--how well does that system work in reality?
electoral votes are based on the popular vote. You would have to change allocation from winner-take-all to something else. The VP idea is just not practical. That rule existed in the old days before they really even had political parties.

Everyone is welcome to read Hamilton in the Federalist Papers No. 68. on why we need the Electoral College.
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_68.html

No kidding?

I meant the points/delegates gained from the electoral college (by state) count towards the election as well as the overall national total of votes for each candidate. That way you have state delegate counts weighing in as well as the total (population's) overall votes on a national level.

I really like the idea of dividing the delegates by percentage vs. winner take all. That makes more sense as well.
gemini is offline   Reply With Quote