PDA

View Full Version : Too little too late?



SnakebyteXX
12-13-2004, 03:03 PM
Illinois electors officially endorse Kerry for president

December 13, 2004

Illinois' presidential electors officially voted Monday for Democrats John Kerry and John Edwards, even though the two lost the election nationwide last month.
Kerry and Edwards won about 55 percent of the vote in Illinois, securing the state's 21 presidential votes in the Electoral College. But President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney won enough Electoral College votes in other states for a second term.

The Electoral College was expected to certify President Bush's re-election Monday, and electors were meeting in their respective states across the nation.

In Ohio, however, dissident groups asked the state Supreme Court to stop the Electoral College vote there until their challenge to the election results can be heard. Bush won Ohio by 119,000 votes, a margin of about 2 percent, and its 20 electoral votes put him over the threshold for election. The state's high court did not indicate when it would respond to the request.

In Illinois, Secretary of State Jesse White's office held a short ceremony at the state Capitol.

White said he and other Democrat electors were saddened to vote for a candidate who would not win but that is the way the system works. He said he personally would support changing the law to let the popular vote determine the winner.

"Go back to one man, one vote, which is the popular vote," White said. "That is the will of the people."

Bush won the popular vote nationally by a margin of about 3.5 million votes.


Link (http://abclocal.go.com/wls/news/121304_ap_ns_electoral.html)

Wally_in_Cincy
12-14-2004, 06:29 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SnakebyteXX:</font><hr>
...In Ohio, however, dissident groups asked the state Supreme Court to stop the Electoral College vote there until their challenge to the election results can be heard. Bush won Ohio by 119,000 votes...<hr /></blockquote>

Jesse "Shakedown" Jackson was in OH a couple of weeks ago blathering about "counting all the votes". Local talk show host Bill "Willie" Cunningham told a little previously unknown story about JJ

Willie and Marge Schott were friends and neighbors. Wilie, his wife and mother, and Marge went out to brunch around the time Marge was ripped apart in SI, being accused of such things as calling Eric Davis and Dave Parker her "million-dollar ni**ers"

She told Willie that JJ had contacted her and told her he could make her problems go away for 2 million bucks. She refused to pay it.

Can you say "extortion"?

eg8r
12-14-2004, 07:26 AM
[ QUOTE ]
White said he and other Democrat electors were saddened to vote for a candidate who would not win but that is the way the system works. He said he personally would support changing the law to let the popular vote determine the winner. <hr /></blockquote> Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Bush win the popular vote also? So what is the point of changing from one system (that works fine) to another system, when the outcome would be the same? Sounds like a waste of time and money.

eg8r

SPetty
12-14-2004, 09:34 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>So what is the point of changing from one system (that works fine) to another system, when the outcome would be the same? <hr /></blockquote>I don't think it's a given that the outcome would be the same. It might take a few voting cycles, but I think if the voting system was changed from an electoral college to a popular vote, more people would actually care and vote because they would start believing that their vote actually meant something. The outcome may be the same, but I don't think we'd know that without trying it out.

I know there are also those that would disagree that the current electoral college system "works fine". It seems inherently illogical the way most states work that 100% of their electoral college votes go to the candidate that won, say, 52% of the vote.

Wally_in_Cincy
12-14-2004, 09:58 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SPetty:</font><hr>

I know there are also those that would disagree that the current electoral college system "works fine". It seems inherently illogical the way most states work that 100% of their electoral college votes go to the candidate that won, say, 52% of the vote. <hr /></blockquote>

Not if it is viewed in its historical context. The electoral college (and the Senate) was designed to give the small states more clout in the Union. It was a compromise that was necessary to get them to join.

There's really no point in bringing it up. There is virtually no chance of amending the Constitution since 3/4 of the states have to agree to it and no small state is going to approve it.

Moot point.

eg8r
12-14-2004, 01:01 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it's a given that the outcome would be the same. It might take a few voting cycles, but I think if the voting system was changed from an electoral college to a popular vote, more people would actually care and vote because they would start believing that their vote actually meant something. The outcome may be the same, but I don't think we'd know that without trying it out.
<hr /></blockquote> I don't think it is worth "trying it out". There is already too much money wasted at the federal level. There is a reason for the electoral college and no one has given a decent reason for abandoning it.

Why don't Senate seats ever come into question when people start talking about popular votes? There is a reason there is only 2 seats per state in the Senate.

eg8r

Chopstick
12-14-2004, 02:38 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote SPetty:</font><hr>

I know there are also those that would disagree that the current electoral college system "works fine". It seems inherently illogical the way most states work that 100% of their electoral college votes go to the candidate that won, say, 52% of the vote. <hr /></blockquote>

Not if it is viewed in its historical context. The electoral college (and the Senate) was designed to give the small states more clout in the Union. It was a compromise that was necessary to get them to join.

There's really no point in bringing it up. There is virtually no chance of amending the Constitution since 3/4 of the states have to agree to it and no small state is going to approve it.

Moot point. <hr /></blockquote>

I really don't pay much attention to politics but according to my Wally's World map those little states are blue ones.