Well, I am one of those Dems who think that the electoral college system is archaic. I also think the superdelegate thing is ridiculous. Put in who the people want, period.

I like the electoral college, I don't care about the superdelegates. I do think trying to count primaries in electoral votes is silly because the only reason it's even talked about is that it is the only metric in which Clinton is winning.

As some of you know I am a conservative, but I will stick up for the Florida Democratic Party in this case. I don't know how it was in MI, but in FL both state houses and governor's mansion are all occupied by Republicans as are many of the other elected officials in the state. The Republicans changed the primary date to basically screw with the Dems, and it worked.

I do not agree with what my party did, but I would have thought that the National Democratic party would have considered this in their original decision to throw out the votes. In my opinion is was a disfranchisement to the Democrats of Florida. That being said, I am not in favor of another vote; in fact, this won;t happen because it is past the time
line in the State of Florida.

As for the Electoral College, I think it is funny this came up recently, as I just finished teaching my students about it! Remember that the original intent was that all states had a voice no matter if they were small or large (Sorry, its the government teacher inside of me!)

I understand the original intent of the Electoral College but the reality is, if the biggest states all go the same way, the other states still don't really matter. The largest are so large and get so many electorates that it seems to negate that effect.

If the Florida Democrats had actually voted against the proposal, I might agree with you.

No, I disagree. The electoral college does have more of a "leveling the playing field" than that. If your premise were true, the Democrats would have won the last two elections because they carried the coasts, where the largest cities with the most dense populations are. But since they only have a certain number of delegates, only winning those big cities and thus those states was not enough to carry the election. The candidate needs to win enough of the states with smaller, but significant, delegate counts to carry the election. If the electoral college goes away, candidates would only need to focus on (and care about) winning the most dense areas votes-wise, excluding everyone else from having a voice. It's really quite a brilliant system. Frustrating at times, sure, but brilliant nonetheless.


ETA: This was in response to AGDee's post, not Drolefille's. I forgot to quote & reply.

You can blame the Republicans all you want, but the bottom line is that it was an unanimous decision. Nobody's hands are clean on that decision - everybody needs to accept the responsibility.

Just on watching the past elections, I think the White House is the Democrats' to lose. This is going to be an election for the books.

Where a candidate focuses on is up to them. At the end of the day, the candidate who wins the popular vote has more people voting for him or her. I don't see the big deal about the "state" having a say. States' rights were a much bigger deal 230 and 140 years ago. If the state allots 100% of its delegates to a candidate that won 51%/49%, they're not representing the people. If a candidate wins the states he/she wins by narrow margins and loses big where he/she loses, he/she doesn't deserve to win the election unless he/she wins the popular vote.

If two candidates only focus on voters in large, urban areas, they're missing out on potential votes from rural areas, and there are a lot of them.

I see a very big deal about it. It's not about states "rights" at all, at least not as that term is usually used. It's about being a federal republic. That the states have retained through the Constitution the right to have equal or proportional voice in how the country is governed is what makes this is federal republic. The states are not political subdivisions or administrative divisions of the country like, say, regions in France (or counties of a state); they are sovereign states that have ceded a portion of their sovereignty in order to form a federal government for the benefit of all. The two vehicles of government where this is most clearly demonstrated are the Senate, where a Wyoming has a voice equal to a California's, and the electoral college, where the states elect the president.

Looking only to the popular vote simply ignores the federal framework of the country.

How does that work exactly, when the state Democratic party knew exactly what it was doing? I'm a registered Democrat in Florida (although I haven't lived there in almost a decade), and I knew full well what was going to happen.

Exactly, if I remember correctly no Florida Democrats dissented in the final vote.

I also think it's being talked about because it may be a better predictor of who can win in the general.

Sure, we wouldn't hear about either if someone had wrapped up the nomination and/or the same person was ahead by a slim margin in each, but it seems pretty valid.

Additionally, how much does the particular nominee matter in states that will almost certainly go blue or almost certainly go red no matter who is the nominee? A argument, it seems to me, could be made that only who carries swing state really matters, even more than the electoral votes of the state.

Awesome.

Good Point!