AlGore calls for end of Electoral College

[MattCary]

http://thehill.com/b...ectoral-college

Why not just call for the end of the Republic?

Popular vote pretty much assures that NYC, Chicago, LA, Dallas, Miami, etc decides the election.

Anyone remember the county by county map of the 2000 election?

THIS is why we have the Electoral College.

[bvarnell]

Al Gore was, is, and always will be a left wing loon/complete idiot.

[Oh Shoot]

Well, popular vote would have made him president in 2000 so it's an understandable sentiment on his part, eh?

- OS

[MattCary]

Al Gore was, is, and always will be a left wing loon/complete idiot.

Yes, but according to the article, 9 states have passed legislation that will give their electoral college votes to the winner of the popular vote. It says that they don't go into effect until 270 votes worth of states enact similar legislation.

[MattCary]

Well, popular vote would have made him president in 2000 so it's an understandable sentiment on his part, eh?

- OS

Winning his home state would have made him president as well, he seems to miss that point, however.

[Guest bkelm18]

http://thehill.com/b...ectoral-college

Why not just call for the end of the Republic?

Popular vote pretty much assures that NYC, Chicago, LA, Dallas, Miami, etc decides the election.

Anyone remember the county by county map of the 2000 election?

THIS is why we have the Electoral College.

It is interesting that the major population centers vote blue while the more rural areas vote red. Maybe large numbers of people are just inherently stupid.

[quietguy]

Winning his home state would have made him president as well, he seems to miss that point, however.

Funny how he overlooks that fact, isn't it.

Rather than eliminate the electoral college, I would much rather see the 17th Amendment repealed. Our founding fathers were genius in how they set things up. Most of our mistakes have come in how we have tried to "fix" their system.

[E4 No More]

It is interesting that the major population centers vote blue while the more rural areas vote red. Maybe large numbers of people are just inherently stupid.

People are stupid; individuals are smart.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yeh, he says "If you can't win one way, change the rules." Good ole Al.

[quietguy]

It is interesting that the major population centers vote blue while the more rural areas vote red. Maybe large numbers of people are just inherently stupid.

There is a direct link between population density, liberalism, aggression, and social pathology.

[MattCary]

People are stupid; individuals are smart.

Both of you are exactly right. In the rural areas, people are individuals and self-reliant. In the cities they are part of the herd and dependent. Most of the nonsense in our legislation comes from the cities.

Funny how he overlooks that fact, isn't it.

Rather than eliminate the electoral college, I would much rather see the 17th Amendment repealed. Our founding fathers were genius in how they set things up. Most of our mistakes have come in how we have tried to "fix" their system.

This is dead on as well. I've said for years we needed to do this. As it is, the states have no direct representation in the Senate.

[QuietDan]

Among about a million other reasons, if AlGore is for it, I am AGAINST it. Period.

[daddyo]

Winning his home state would have made him president as well, he seems to miss that point, however.

Yeah, losing Tennessee had to hurt. At least I hope it did.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Think it could be done state-by-state under current law, but maybe it wouldn't be bad to assign electors by a percentage of the total statewide vote. I think a couple of states do something like that. Ferinstance if the D gets 45% and the R gets 45% and the libertarian gets 10%, and the state has 10 electors, then libertarians would actually get an elector. Yay! Virtually impossible in today's system. Minority party voters don't even get represented a little bit with winner take all elector assignments. Ever.

In a real close race, a few third party electors that could swing the result either way, would buy third parties a little healthier respect from d's and r's.

[Jonnin]

I actually agree with AL. The EC could use, at the very least, a revamp. I am not in favor of popular vote, at all. However, I am not terribly happy with the current system either where the 2 or 3 states with a billionty people control a good chunk of the election due to 100% of their vote (which is split like 75/25 democrat) going to the winner. The EC used to be a happy medium between popular vote and regional, but it has become more and more weighted toward pure population and that needs to be looked at. I do not have an answer though, all I can think of is a square root type curve for population vs EC votes, so that exponentially higher population only gives a few more EC votes. No one would even understand that, let alone implement it, though.

[Glenn]

Among about a million other reasons, if AlGore is for it, I am AGAINST it. Period.

you beat me to it. If Al is for it, I am against it.

Glenn

[Erik88]

I always thought the majority vote made more sense than the electoral college. The idea of having "swing states" always annoyed me.

[Jonnin]

pure population vote takes all say out of entire regions of the country, the middle and the south would have NO say in any policy anymore. Its the difference between the house and the senate.... the house, the mid and south struggle and lose a lot to the big population states. The senate.... 2 reps per state, puts the big population but few in number back in their place (sometimes). .... There has to be something fair that prevents bullying of the bulk of the country by a couple of population heavy spots yet does not discount the high population (they do, after all, get a vote and a say!). That is what the EC tries to do.

Swing states and everything riding on a couple of states is annoying to me too, but I would much rather not have a pure popular vote until such time as the population has a lot better sense than it does right now.

[MattCary]

I always thought the majority vote made more sense than the electoral college. The idea of having "swing states" always annoyed me.

So you'd rather the population centers decided the Presidential elections?

[Guest ThePunisher]

Swing states and everything riding on a couple of states is annoying to me too, but I would much rather not have a pure popular vote until such time as the population has a lot better sense than it does right now.

After the 2008 election, I'm convinced that it may be a long time coming before the population gains in the area of intelligence or even just common sense. The majority of the politicians are greatly lacking in the area of common sense; example in question is Nancy Pelosi: "we've got to pass the bill to know what's in the bill". I'm afraid there is long wait in store for an increase in people's intelligence if Nancy is any indication.

[Guest ArmyVeteran37214]

Yeh, he says "If you can't win one way, change the rules." Good ole Al.

That's exactly what the GOP did this election cycle.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

But we're talking about something else entirely. The GOP may have changed internal rules within

their organization, but the Electoral College is nothing similar to that.

The GOP can do that and run the risk of ticking voters off, but the Electoral requires an action of Congress,

a big action.

[runco]

What are the demographics cross section of people in the urban areas vs. the rural area. Do you reckon this has anything to do with it! Why do people want to leave the urban areas for the suberbs?

[Erik88]

So you'd rather the population centers decided the Presidential elections?

Doesn't that happen anyways?

[Hershmeister]

I'd be happier if Washington dc was shrunk In size to just be the federal govt business district and the rest given bsck to Maryland. It's ridiculous thAt they get electoral college votes for a population that is directly attached to uncle sugars tit.

PS: this already happened with the portion that was adjacent to Virginia!