Thanks jseal, for the links and all the info.

As to a reform to the 12th amendment...Since it's inception, there have been quite a few tweaks/changes to it. As it stands today, and what some people may not realize is, when we cast our vote for a presidential candidate, we are in actuality voting for an electorate official to make up the slate for our particular state. In this system, we cast a blind faith vote for the person who is running for this office (Electoral College Slate), and that he/she is truly what they claim they are...be it a Democrat or a Republican. And [we] don't even know who these people are or anything about their past political views unless [we] are diligent enough to seek out who is in the running and look into their political history. They aren't the ones campaigning. It's the candidates that they claim to represent that are in our faces day in and day out.

I've never been a supporter of blind faith in any action in my life. I'm more of a scientific mindset. Maybe I should move to Missouri...the "Show Me" state! LOL!

Anyway...I see room for change...where [we] can know the names and politics of our electorate slate for each state...and vote for them first, in a seperate election. Or, better yet, get rid of the electoral vote all together. It's antiquated anyway. It was made up even before there were political parties and when there were fewer states and fewer people and no way for them to get to know a candidate outside of their own state (no mass media). We all know how bombarded we are by media coverage now. How about a bit of "blind faith" from the governing bodies that ask it of us, and trust that [we] are smart enough and informed enough to make a vote based on processed information from all candidates...not just our local yokel!!! This isn't a football game ya know! I can look outside some of my loyalties and weigh the issues and figure the balances on my own...damnitalltohell! I know...I know...Don't ask something of someone else that you aren't willing to do yourself (blind faith reference). But, there's got to be a better way...right? How bout an EQUAL amount of electorate votes for each state? It's a tweak...not an abolishment (word?...is now!)...and I can't understand why one state can walk taller and carry a bigger stick. We're all Americans!

As to the morality and religious issue...pollster's questions were like this..."In order of priority, the most crucial being number one, why did you vote for *your candidate* (insert Republican or Democratic candidate here)"...and then gave a list of issues with unspoken subtext...such as: Terrorism...Morality...Homeland Security...Healthcare...Trust...National Debt...etc. etc...and the religious votes fell under morality...whereas the cost of prescriptions would have fallen under healthcare. When further questioned, in informal interviews in the media, those who voted morality (nearly 80% of the voting population) sited reasons of church and state, such as I listed above (in my last response to this thread). The one I listed above is just one of the few that I remembered verbatim. Since there was no Religion category persay, the voters concluded/included it with morality. I wasn't the one who put it all in a nutshell...it was the other voters!

*falls off the soapbox* Eeeeeeeek!

I can see the Hillary vs. Jeb thing happening, even! LOL! It's a thinker!

As to the "not using the electoral system"...

I said above...the 12th amendment has been revised quite a bit since it came into being. Why couldn't we do away with it and make ALL votes count or give all states equal amounts of electorate votes?

We've cum...er...come a long way baby!

(((((Scarecrow)))))

I'm afraid that if we did not have the ECS that even fewer votes would not count. Say canidate A wins the poplular vote in every state east of the Mississippi he could possible win with out a single vote being cast west of the Mississippi, it is highly unlikely but it could happen.

Scarecrow,

I went to make dinner and got to thinking...did I mention equal electorate votes? So I came back and edited my last reply to ask that very question. Please reread aforementioned post. TY hun!

If you have equal electorate votes then the people of Rhode Island, all 1 million of them are equal to the 33+ million in California. That does not seem fair that 32 million Californians do not count.

Proportional?
 

I think the way Maine has tweeked the ECS and Colorado proposed on this years ballot is a very fair way to do it. Where the ECS votes for each state are split in proportion to the actual vote of the state, thus if you have a state that votes 70% D and 30% R, then the ECS votes are split the same way. It's the best way to assimilate the popular votes and keep the ECS alive, IMHO.

I didn't move all those people to California! The gold did it I tell ya! And I didn't make the Mason/Dixon line either...lol! Matter of fact...North and South Jersey wanted succession (not that THEY have anything to do with the Mason/Dixon line...duh!). The lines are drawn...and I didn't draw them...so if you have 1,000,000 or 33,000,000...it's your state...make your vote count!

LMFAO! Good point Scarecrow...but it was just a fleeting thought off the top of my head. I know that the electorate vote is more to help than to hinder, but when you see the colors on the map...how do you ignore the ignorance of those whose candidate won, when they say from the heart, it was of the majority of the country who elected [him], and have no idea how the system works or who they actually voted for???? I give up! Anyone have any better ideas?

Oh man! I like it! Someone is bound to come up with something that'll make it impossible to embrace. *sigh*

OK...so when can we see this option on a ballot? Ut oh! Who'll decide the outcome of such a vote? LMAO! Vicious circle begins! Well...let's see. How did Maine get to tweak it and how did Colorado do on the vote? How do we get this ball in motion?

This is an idea that I have thought should be in place for a number of elections now. Make each of the states still have some power on their own via the electoral college, but make each of the states have to represent their populations with an actual split of the votes as they were cast by the people!

Did it pass in Co.? I was going to pay attention to that but got distracted. I think it is the smart way to keep what we were given but while making necessary adjustments.

Lilith,

No. Colorado Amendment 36 was defeated. It sounds to be what maddy, LixyChick and MilkToast are proposing.

*faints* we finally found some agreement on a political thread here... please don't spank me back to reality. Perhaps after I am done with school, I'll figure out the appropriate steps to push this in my own state... and with any luck I will move just after that and then I can pester the government of a new state ;)

LixyChick,

So your plugging a constitutional amendment? Well, you sure can’t be criticized for setting your goals too to low! Interesting idea. You wear this soapbox well.

:rolleyes: Always remember ... no matter who wins ...




... it's still a politician. :(

I like the idea of splitting a state EC votes also. But Colorado was only going to give the winner 5 votes and the loser 4 votes. I'd like to see a better way to split the votes. Such as the winner gets the 2 votes every state gets and then the vote tied to the number of house seats the state holds goes to the person who won that house district.



P.S. Maddy I just like to spank you forget about reallity :spank: