Freeper Hypocrisy and getting rid of the Electoral College

[Solar]

Colorado voters will soon decide on Amendment 36, a topic to do away with their state's "winner-take-all" system of awarding votes to the electoral college. As you know, this is the system that allowed Bush to become president even though the popular vote was in favor of Al Gore. The new system will award votes based on proportion instead.

Now what truely irks me to no end is the hypocrisy of conservatives on this issue compared to others (courtesy of the freepers)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1194870/posts

Favorite quote:
"The founding fathers purposely devised it so that Presidents and Senators were not directly elected by the people because they wanted the United States to be a representative republic, not a democracy.
A democracy is two wolve and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner, or two winos and a brain surgeon voting on whether health care should be free"

But where were these people during the debates over Missouri's anti-gay marriage amendment debates? Cheerleading for the side of 'majority rules'! We can't have normal people elect the President, but they're smart enough to write discrimination in a state constitution? :crazy:

Those on the right claim that this is only a way to take votes away from Bush. Yes it is. They only oppose it so Bush will get votes. This can only lead to a deadlock.

The main problem I have with the electoral college is that it is an imperfect system. This is a very confusing and roundabout way of doing things. For those who don't know, each state is given votes based on how many Senators and Representative that state has in Congress. Every state has just two Senators, but Represenatives are based off of population.

This is where the inaccuracies appear. The number of Represenatives can only increase in whole numbers. You obviously can't have half or a third of a Representative because your population didn't grow enough for a full one. Based on the Official 2000 Census (study of population) one Representative serves on average 646,952 people (source).
For instance, you can grow by 500,000 people, but still not get an additional Representative. There are 438 votes that are influenced by population. If each one of these districts were to be off by that much, 219 million people would be underrepresented. Of course this is only a probability and the law of averages usually balances out population growth with loss. But because our population (as a whole) is always growing, chances are more people will be underrepresented than overrepresented. But this is too important to be left up to chance and averages

Further more, the official Census is only conducted every 10 years. We are going to elect this year, and again in 2008, based off of population figures from 2000.

These are facts that the current system does not work. This is a very different country that it was 200 years ago. Mass media has ensured that every voter has, at least, the chance to be properly informed about candidates. I see no reason at all why we should stick to this outdated system should be allowed to remain.

(I have also posted this for another forum)

[noahmijo]

1. Don't freeps know that if the electoral college was abolished

They'd never "win" another election again? Newsflash freeps: you're the MINORITY in this country.

[Democat]

2. If it was one person, one vote, the Republicans would be done

They would probably never win another presidential race unless Arnold is allowed to run.

[noahmijo]

3. Even then for that to happen

Arnold's opponent would have to be wearing a clown suit and communicate only with his nose-horn.

(And this is coming from someone who loves Arnold the actor)


I refuse to boycott Predator or any of Arnold's good movies like the Terminator movies.