Obama wins Electoral Vote, Romney wins Popular Vote?

[DragonStryk72]

I've been watching the CNN coverage all night, and well, the title pretty much sums it up. Romney at this point still holds the popular vote across the country, while Obama gets the electoral college.

Meanwhile, when you look at Ohio, there are only a few flecks of blue, and the rest is red, same in Florida, where there was a less than 1% difference. The all or nothing way of doing things has really got to go. I honestly think we need to do more what Main and Nebraska do, splitting the electoral votes between the top candidates based on the percentages of votes.

[Robert A Whit]

CA has far too many votes. (55)

Democrats own American cities but we own the rest of America.

If Obama prevails, we are in for a very hard time.

My doctor I fear plans to get rid of his medicare patients as well as those using our state form of medicare called Medi-Cal.

[gabosaurus]

Meanwhile, when you look at Ohio, there are only a few flecks of blue, and the rest is red, same in Florida, where there was a less than 1% difference. The all or nothing way of doing things has really got to go. I honestly think we need to do more what Main and Nebraska do, splitting the electoral votes between the top candidates based on the percentages of votes.

I totally agree. The electoral college is totally outdated. Particularly the "all or nothing" aspect of it.
I doubt the system will ever be junked because the smaller states will squawk too much. But I like splitting the electoral votes through vote percentage.

[fj1200]

I've been watching the CNN coverage all night, and well, the title pretty much sums it up. Romney at this point still holds the popular vote across the country, while Obama gets the electoral college.

Meanwhile, when you look at Ohio, there are only a few flecks of blue, and the rest is red, same in Florida, where there was a less than 1% difference. The all or nothing way of doing things has really got to go. I honestly think we need to do more what Main and Nebraska do, splitting the electoral votes between the top candidates based on the percentages of votes.

And throw out the last vestiges of Federalism? We might as well go all the way to a parliamentary system complete with a Prime Minister and crazy third parties. Besides, individual districts do not elect the President, states do.


But I like splitting the electoral votes through vote percentage.

What would that accomplish?

[Nell's Room]

Well done to Obama. :)

[gabosaurus]

It would be a better representation of how a state really voted. Look at Ohio. Romney might get 49 percent of the popular vote, but no electoral votes.

[Nell's Room]

It would be a better representation of how a state really voted. Look at Ohio. Romney might get 49 percent of the popular vote, but no electoral votes.

Can you explain to me how that works? I don't understand how he could get so many votes, but no electoral votes.

[DragonStryk72]

And throw out the last vestiges of Federalism? We might as well go all the way to a parliamentary system complete with a Prime Minister and crazy third parties. Besides, individual districts do not elect the President, states do.



What would that accomplish?

Obama would have gotten about 14 vote in Florida, about half of Ohio, PA, and a percentage of the votes in place slike NY and CA. This race would have looked markedly different. I'm not talking about chucking the whole electoral college, just tweaking the way we do things now, just like Maine and Nebraska do them currently.

[Anton Chigurh]

Obama wins Electoral Vote, Romney wins Popular Vote?No.

Obama won the popular vote as well, by almost 2 million votes.

[Anton Chigurh]

Meanwhile, when you look at Ohio, there are only a few flecks of blue, and the rest is red, same in Florida, where there was a less than 1% difference. The all or nothing way of doing things has really got to go. I honestly think we need to do more what Main and Nebraska do, splitting the electoral votes between the top candidates based on the percentages of votes.That is up to the states and should NOT be federally mandated.

[DragonStryk72]

Can you explain to me how that works? I don't understand how he could get so many votes, but no electoral votes.

Well, basically, our states use and "all or nothing" method for deciding electoral votes for the state, except for two, Maine and Nebraska, so if you came in 1 vote behind your opponent, everyone in the state that didn't vote for the winner might as well have not voted, because they will receive none of those votes as representation of their state.

[tailfins]

I totally agree. The electoral college is totally outdated. Particularly the "all or nothing" aspect of it.
I doubt the system will ever be junked because the smaller states will squawk too much. But I like splitting the electoral votes through vote percentage.


Any modification to the Electoral College that doesn't isolate voter fraud is a mistake.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Well done to Obama. :)

Well done????

[fj1200]

It would be a better representation of how a state really voted. Look at Ohio. Romney might get 49 percent of the popular vote, but no electoral votes.


Obama would have gotten about 14 vote in Florida, about half of Ohio, PA, and a percentage of the votes in place slike NY and CA. This race would have looked markedly different. I'm not talking about chucking the whole electoral college, just tweaking the way we do things now, just like Maine and Nebraska do them currently.

To what end? So the EC would more represent the popular vote? All the Romney states would then be giving up EC votes to Obama and it would be a virtual wash or you would have a mere split along the EC the mirrors the popular vote.

The point is that States elect the President, the people do not. We either have a Federalist system or we do not; I for one think we should move back towards it and not away. Only by rare exception do the two outcomes differ and is no reason to throw out the EC IMO.

[DragonStryk72]

To what end? So the EC would more represent the popular vote? All the Romney states would then be giving up EC votes to Obama and it would be a virtual wash or you would have a mere split along the EC the mirrors the popular vote.

The point is that States elect the President, the people do not. We either have a Federalist system or we do not; I for one think we should move back towards it and not away. Only by rare exception do the two outcomes differ and is no reason to throw out the EC IMO.

So... Maine and Nebraska aren't federal? The EC would still exist, it would simply reflect the majority votes more. Federalism does not have to completely negate representation of the vote. I don't know why you believe it does.

[fj1200]

So... Maine and Nebraska aren't federal? The EC would still exist, it would simply reflect the majority votes more. Federalism does not have to completely negate representation of the vote. I don't know why you believe it does.

In the purest sense? No, they've potentially diluted their vote and influence as a State. If you accept our Federalist system then you have to accept that States vote for POTUS and not the citizens directly. Having the EC represent the PV is just putting window dressing on the EC, once you do that the EC serves no purpose.

Oh, and repeal the 17th amendment ;) which is not unrelated IMO.


Critics of the Seventeenth Amendment claim that by altering the way senators are elected, the states lost any representation they had in the federal government and that this led to the gradual "slide into ignominy" of state legislatures,[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constit ution#cite_note-byb535-1) as well as an overextension of federal power and the rise of special interest groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Interest_Group) to fill the power vacuum previously occupied by state legislatures.

...

New Deal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal) legislation is another example of expanding federal regulation overruling the state legislatures promoting their local state interests in coal, oil, corn and cotton.[44] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constit ution#cite_note-43) Ure agrees, saying that not only is each Senator now free to ignore his state's interests, Senators "have incentive to use their advice-and-consent powers to install Supreme Court justices who are inclined to increase federal power at the expense of state sovereignty."[45] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constit ution#cite_note-44) Over the first half of the Twentieth Century, with a popularly elected Senate confirming nominations both Republican and Democratic, the Supreme Court began to apply the Bill of Rights to state law, overturning it wherever it harmed individual state citizens by applying theFourteenth Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion).[46] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constit ution#cite_note-45)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constit ution

[SassyLady]

In the purest sense? No, they've potentially diluted their vote and influence as a State. If you accept our Federalist system then you have to accept that States vote for POTUS and not the citizens directly. Having the EC represent the PV is just putting window dressing on the EC, once you do that the EC serves no purpose.

Oh, and repeal the 17th amendment ;) which is not unrelated IMO.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constit ution

So, if states elect presidents there should only be 50 votes. Who actually held the most states? One state, one vote.

[fj1200]

So, if states elect presidents there should only be 50 votes. Who actually held the most states? One state, one vote.

Oh come on now.

[cadet]

Well done to Obama. :)

:upyours:

[aboutime]

This thread is silly, foolish, and it discloses how so many Americans who claim to be so knowledgeable about the Constitution. Actually are not.

If you have questions about how the Electoral College was designed to work...according to the Founding Fathers.

READ the Constitution, and the amendments. Nothing has changed since the adoption of our Constitution except the added amendments.

There are methods in place to change, and amend the constitution. READ about them by READING THE CONSTITUTION.

[SassyLady]

Oh come on now.

What? States don't elect presidents ... didn't you just make this statement?





If you accept our Federalist system then you have to accept that States vote for POTUS and not the citizens directly.

[aboutime]

What? States don't elect presidents ... didn't you just make this statement?



SassyLady. Let it go. The Obama syndrome is now fully underway. NO LIE IS LEFT UNSAID.

[SassyLady]

SassyLady. Let it go. The Obama syndrome is now fully underway. NO LIE IS LEFT UNSAID.

Just remember .... "evil can only exist when good men do nothing." I'm not willing to lie down and shut up. I will continue to question until I understand why people think our current system is appropriate.

[fj1200]

What? States don't elect presidents ... didn't you just make this statement?

Huh? No one ever said it was one state, one vote.

:confused:

[fj1200]

SassyLady. Let it go. The Obama syndrome is now fully underway. NO LIE IS LEFT UNSAID.

Now, WTF are you talking about?


Just remember .... "evil can only exist when good men do nothing." I'm not willing to lie down and shut up. I will continue to question until I understand why people think our current system is appropriate.

You disagree with the Founders and our Federalist Republic? Why is our current system NOT appropriate?

[gabosaurus]

I'm not willing to lie down and shut up. I will continue to question until I understand why people think our current system is appropriate.

I did this all during the Bush administration. I was labeled as a Bush hating anti-American scumbag who hated the troops and endorsed terrorism.
Of course, doing the same thing during a Democratic administration makes you a Patriot. Funny how that works. :rolleyes:

If you are dissatisfied with how things are going, continue to ask questions and challenge the parts of the system that you believe are broken.
My dad always taught me that the only stupid questions are the ones that are not asked.
Always challenge authority. It's keep people honest.