Abolish the Electoral College

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:

My assertion is that the Senate serves the states best while the President should be winner take all.

Bush won by millions of votes but won the EC my less than 100K.

If Kerry received just 100K more votes in Ohio then my assertion would take on a whole new meaning.

My point is Bush won the popular vote but won the election literally by the skin of his teeth.

You sound you couldn’t care less about the Electoral College institutionally and that what you really want is for your candidate to win.[/quote]

Who is ‘my candidate’?

I wrote McCain in both times.

Do you have a point?

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:

Who is ‘my candidate’?

I wrote McCain in both times.

Do you have a point?[/quote]

Yes, my point is you came in and basically said “abolish the Electoral College” and never told anyone why it should be that way. Then you went on to say our two recent Presidential elections would have different ha we not had an Electoral College.

No shit.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Yes, my point is you came in and basically said “abolish the Electoral College” and never told anyone why it should be that way. Then you went on to say our two recent Presidential elections would have different ha we not had an Electoral College.[/quote]

The only election that would have been effected is 2000 (not 2004) so your last sentence makes absolutely no sense

You are wrong.

What is your point?

The electoral college was put in to protect smaller states at the time which were NJ and DE ironically.

I do not care about the smaller states. They have Senators and that is all they need.

[quote]cap’nsalty wrote:

How exactly does one dissolve the two party system? [/quote]

First, I was speaking more thematically than literally. I’d rather be well represented by candidates and staff that accurately represent near the totality of our ideals within the system than rewrite the system because the person who carried the minority of our ideals lost.

IMO, a broader field of candidates is more likely to, on sheer chance alone, bring in more governing talent as well as dilute out campaigning talent. (I understand there are drawbacks to abandoning two-party, they are lesser than eliminating the EC or the 17th Am. IMO).

Second, the machinery is already in place, vote third party and encourage others to do the same, as well as registering as ‘other’ or not delineating political party when registering or reregistering, contribute time, effort, money, resources, etc. to ‘third party’ causes.

We are not a constitutionally two-party country and I don’t believe our melting pot is best represented by such heterogeneity.

Third, I think any blueprint to truly dissolve the two-party system in any active manner would require criminal activity, rewriting the laws, or both, which is pretty much what is going on now and wouldn’t fix things.

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:

The only election that would have been effected is 2000 (not 2004) so your last sentence makes absolutely no sense[/quote]

But previously, you said:

[quote]Bush won by millions of votes but won the EC my less than 100K.

If Kerry received just 100K more votes in Ohio then my assertion would take on a whole new meaning.[/quote]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:

The only election that would have been effected is 2000 (not 2004) so your last sentence makes absolutely no sense

But previously, you said:

Bush won by millions of votes but won the EC my less than 100K.

If Kerry received just 100K more votes in Ohio then my assertion would take on a whole new meaning.[/quote]

You wrote:
“Yes, my point is you came in and basically said “abolish the Electoral College” and never told anyone why it should be that way. Then you went on to say our two recent Presidential elections would have different ha we not had an Electoral College.”

I never said anything about our last 2 presidential elections being effected by the EC. The 2000 election was the only one effect by our EC. The 2004 election came precariously close but was not.

You must have me confused with someone else.

You are arguing about something I never wrote.