Are we still in favor of eliminating the EC for Pop Vote?

Just asking

of course if you have the vote rigged either is fine.

i still think the EV has got to go.. more people would vote if there vote counted...

No more of this "swing state" bullshit. Make the candidates go from one end of the country to the other campaigning. I can't imagine any other first-world democracy approving of such a convoluted way to choose their head of state in this day and age.

where the party chooses its leader, districts elect a member or parliment, and whatever party wins the most districts, its leader becomes the head of Government?

as ti is now it's fine. Just have to make all voting uniform and with receipt backups.

...other people who might have come out in greater numbers.

Imagine Kerry didn't have to worry about the South at all, he could have talked more to people in California and New York and the other states on the coasts.

Many decisions in the Kerry campaign were made while thinking of the South, because he needed their electoral votes.

The electoral college screwed us again, even if Bush won the popular vote this time.

Fair is fair. The value of a vote for president should not depend upon where within the US the voter lives.

Of course, I'm also for giving the wider world a say in the presidency. If he's the leader of the free world, then damn it, the free world should get a say. I don't have a specific plan in mind, but they should have some voice, too.

No, then all campaigning would take place in large population centers and small states would be left out in the cold. With the EC a small state like WV has to get some attention from the candidates.

The Founding Fathers were right.

MORE attention than a big city?

How many times did either candidate go to Indiana, Alabama, or Vermont? How was this a national campaign for either candidate? Who went to Mississippi or Idaho? Polarized states get no attention and thus are less likely to change each year. Getting rid of the EC means you actually get credit for campaigning in all 50 states.

And WY is OVER REPRESENTED in the EC. Each of it's EVs are shared by 167,000 citizens whereas 600,000 Californians share each electoral vote. That is a 4-1 advantage for WY.

We could still keep the EC if we enlarged it by adding more house members. Take the chamber up to 600. This would better represent urban areas who get the shaft now. Small states would still have the senate as a check on power. Also, no constitutional ammendment is need to enlarge the house.

See what I mean

Find the smallest state and establish that population as the amount for one Rep. Then scale up from there.

I also think that the winner in each Congressional district should get the electoral vote from that district and the statewide winner gets the two senatorial EVs

we need to eliminate unaudited black box voting
we need to eliminate gross incompetence by election offices and officials
we need to count every vote

Why are there so many provisional ballots this year?

we need to reform the electoral college. That doesn't mean get rid of it, but it needs to be made relevant to the cultural demographic of this country.

And finally, we need to keep religious nutjob country bumpkins from voting on initiatives that impact the daily lives of people who live in civilization. If I hear the word "values" come from one motherfucker just once this next week I'm going to drop the son of a bitch, because it's code for "hate the fags".

Getting some coffee - I'm grouchier than a bear with rabies right now.

Under the curretn system, they can "win" by messing with just a few key states. In a popular vote, they would have to mess with everyone.

When we can uniformly have a vote in the country.. and STOP leaving it to each COUNTY make their own rules, then I'm fine with Popular Vote. UNTIL we have a REAL media that will actually fucking REPORT the instances of fraud and intimidation and trickery, then it doesn't matter WHAT system we have.

I have been since 8th Grade, and nothing I've seen this year has made me change my mind about that. Look at it this way--if Kerry does turn out to be the winner in Ohio (AND perhaps Florida), he would have the Electoral Vote victory, but Dub would still likely win the popular vote. Would Kerry be the "winner"? Yes--happily for all of us, of course--but the Repubs would likely scream "fraud!" even louder than did we in 2000 about Florida. Rest assured, in that situation, there would be a sudden "Bi-Partisan" move to produce a Constitutional amendment eliminating the E.C. And it WOULD get done, perhaps in time for 2008.

Let us hope so.

It would make the meaning of the words "Count every vote!" MUCH more meaningful, as, litterally, EVERY single vote would have a DIRECT role in determining who became president, in whatever state AND in D.C. My vote in North Carolina would have EQUAL value to that of a voter in Florida, in Ohio, in Pa., in New York, and in California. As would those of you DUers in Rhode Island, Delaware (hi, LYNNESYN!:D ), and yes, in D.C., too!

Let's do what every other industrialized democracy in the world does--make EVERY VOTE COUNT in choosing our leader!

B-)

If the turnout numbers are at all accurate (and turnout is easier to get right, it doesn't depend on touch screens), there was a whole lot of abstention going on.

Nationally, turnout estimated at 120 million, yet the PV total is only 113 million. 5% sound high for abstention in my book. It gets even sillier in California, with a turnout estimate of 12 million, yet a PV total of 9.5 million, better than 20% abstention. I know that one of those totals doesn't pass a sniff test.

The Callifornia abstentions are equal to the national PV difference. The national abstentions are twice the gap.

Anyone have numbers for the 2000 abstention rate?