Thoughts on the popular vote vs. Electoral College

The popular vote is killing Oregon. Personally I think our state NEEDS an electoral college.

 

Well, there's really no argument against the electoral vote being best for the US Presidency. Denny laid out a short and good enough argument to support it. There are other good reasons, but it's a moot point.

I want to comment on Natebishop3's idea of a state have an electoral vote.

That thought had never occurred to me. But the more I think about it the more it makes sense. A governor, like a US President, is the representative head over all the people- not just their party. Or maybe for US Senators as well. Right now, eastern Oregon, the majority of the coast, southern Oregon has no voice in the US Senate- only Multnomah and a few other counties. They lost their representative when Smith lost to Merkley (who, I might add, is the key person behind a movement to strip rights away from the minority party in the US Senate by strongly curtailing the use of a filibuster. Another uber liberal trying to silence critics.) Right now, democrats in Oregon have to pander to Multnomah county. Wouldn't it be nice if they had to take into consideration eastern Oregon's concerns, southern Oregon's concerns, the coast... I think we'd get some well rounded political leadership if we had state electoral voting. Right now, it's simply who can "out liberal" their opponent to win election. And if people living outside Multnomah county get royally screwed in the process, so what.

Natebishop3, baby, this has the makings of a good ballot initiative.

Oh yeah, a rep for natebishop3.

 

[sigh] Thanks for raining on my parade.

 

Because it benefits the good for all.

 

It would never get passed BECAUSE of Portland and BECAUSE of Multnomah County, but an electoral college would benefit the ENTIRE state and not just one city.

 

How about when people from Portland vote on things that have nothing to do with them, nor do they have any knowledge of? You think one city should control the fate of the entire state?

 

His vote should count more than yours when voting on issues like trapping to prevent predators from killing his livestock. Yes.

 

Have they really? Or have they just voted for a losing canidate every time? There is a difference you know.

 

But if he believes the earth began 6000 years ago because his preacher tells him so, should his vote count more than a scientist with a PHD in biology at Portland State in regards to whether we teach evolution in our schools?

If we're going to disproportionately favor one group over the rest, I'd favor smart people. When you fill out your ballot, you have to answer some questions about our world (name three branches of government, is our national debt more or less than $100 billion, does the earth revolve around the sun or the sun around the earth, put Afghanistan on a map). The better your score, the more votes you get.

Anyway, I thought Denny's initial post was kind of silly.

"We can't vote for a president because it's a republic." Well that's like saying, "We can't paint a black car red because it's a black car." It's ridiculously circular. We can't cut a tree down because we don't cut trees. We can't eat a taco because we don't eat tacos.

We vote for a president using a republican (electoral college) system, so we can't use a democratic system (direct vote). Never mind that we used to vote for senators using a republican system and moved to direct voting. His initial argument is, "We can't do X because it is not the same as Y."

Much of his other arguments focus on having too many presidential candidates. lol. That is likely to ever be a problem in this country? Every presidential election I've ever heard of has at most three contenders and a bunch of throw-away-your-vote guys. I see nothing that will likely change in the event of direct election.

 

Worried about geography? Well, I AM a geography major, so I guess that would make sense

I'm talking about political issues that affect the state as a whole, not just the small chunk of land that is known as the Portland Metropolitan area. Why should the city of Portland, who has very few people who have ever farmed or ranched in their lives, control legislation in regards to farming and ranching? It makes no sense.

Or, as you pointed out, why should straight people control whether gays are allowed to marry? I'm glad you brought that up. That's a very good point. The majority of the people voting on something they don't understand.

There's a reason why the Anti-Federalists wanted an electoral college in the first place, so that the larger states, with the vastly larger population, couldn't control the destiny of the smaller states. Look at the map of Oregon and how the gubernatorial vote played out.... 90% of the geographic state voted for Dudley. Only like three counties voted for Kitzhaber, but those three counties included Multnomah county.

In an electoral college your vote would be worth just as much as anyone elses.... in Multnomah County. And Multnomah County would be worth one vote. The United States is a republic... not a democracy, but Oregon is being run by mob rule. That's not what this country was founded on.