We elect our Representatives, we elect our Senators and we elect our President. So why is it that we don't elect members to the Judiciary Branch? Just curious, I'm sure there was a reason the founders didn't set it up that way.

We elect our Representatives, we elect our Senators and we elect our President. So why is it that we don't elect members to the Judiciary Branch? Just curious, I'm sure there was a reason the founders didn't set it up that way.
We didn't even elect Senators until 1913.

As near as I can tell, since the Judiciary was never intended to be representative of the people specifically, the intent of the Constition was that it was sufficient for the Chief Executive to appoint, and for Congress to approve, since the Supreme Court was intended to be a *weak* third part of the government.

However, in many jurisdictions, local judges ARE elected.

Good question. Can you just imagine how ugly a Supreme Court Justice election would be?

We didn't even elect Senators until 1913.

As near as I can tell, since the Judiciary was never intended to be representative of the people specifically, the intent of the Constition was that it was sufficient for the Chief Executive to appoint, and for Congress to approve, since the Supreme Court was intended to be a *weak* third part of the government.

However, in many jurisdictions, local judges ARE elected.

Oh, I know this is true but every time I think about it---> :killingme

I just think it's funny that they are appointed by the other branches. Doesn't that seem like a conflict of intrest in the whole checks and balances system.

I just think it's funny that they are appointed by the other branches. Doesn't that seem like a conflict of intrest in the whole checks and balances system.
Senators and other REPRESENTATIVES change over time... Justices dont, therefor they are not always checking and balancing the same people who gave them power... In addition to that, if they make a decision that is unpopular (removing prayer from school, end segregation....) they dont get unseated... Their job is to do what they feel the constitution says, not please the people...

Senators and other REPRESENTATIVES change over time... Justices dont, therefor they are not always checking and balancing the same people who gave them power... In addition to that, if they make a decision that is unpopular (removing prayer from school, end segregation....) they dont get unseated... Their job is to do what they feel the constitution says, not please the people...

Well put. :kiss:

Senators and other REPRESENTATIVES change over time... Justices dont, therefor they are not always checking and balancing the same people who gave them power... In addition to that, if they make a decision that is unpopular (removing prayer from school, end segregation....) they dont get unseated... Their job is to do what they feel the constitution says, not please the people...
Ok, that makes sense.

we elect our President.

Not 100% true. You may be able to vote for the President but the electoral college makes the final decision.

Not 100% true. You may be able to vote for the President but the electoral college makes the final decision.
Well, fine, if you want to get nit picky....

:biggrin:

Not 100% true. You may be able to vote for the President but the electoral college makes the final decision.

Exactly, and how do you all feel about the Electoral College?

I think it's an antiquated system. I don't understand why in a state that has, for example, 6 electoral votes, why does the guy with the majority of popular vote get ALL the electoral votes? Let's say one guy gets 60% of the popular vote and another guy gets 40%, shouldn't one get 4 electoral votes and the other guy get the other 2? It just seems like this is more fair and in keeping with the popular vote. Maybe it isn't that simple! :smile:

I think the electoral college out dated, then people didnt have access to the same media and news we have now... or education... now we are all educated and well informed

I think the electoral college out dates, then people didnt have access to the same media and news we have now... or education... now we are all educated and well informed
:killingme (you were joking, weren't you?)

I don't understand why in a state that has, for example, 6 electoral votes, why does the guy with the majority of popular vote get ALL the electoral votes? Let's say one guy gets 60% of the popular vote and another guy gets 40%, shouldn't one get 4 electoral votes and the other guy get the other 2? It just seems like this is more fair and in keeping with the popular vote.The electoral vote the way we have it now reflects the popular vote, for the most part. With one or two exceptions, the guy with the most popular votes has always gotten the most electoral votes as well.

You can't elect a President through straight popular vote - can you imagine the corruption and fudging around that would take place? But I'm a big fan of your idea to break it down and give electoral votes by percentage of popular vote in a state instead of winner takes all.

:killingme (you were joking, weren't you?)
half way... the well informed and well educated where italic for a reason :P

But I'm a big fan of your idea to break it down and give electoral votes by percentage of popular vote in a state instead of winner takes all.Some states do. It is a state decision.

...In addition to that, if they make a decision that is unpopular (removing prayer from school, end segregation....) they dont get unseated... Their job is to do what they feel the constitution says, not please the people...They can be impeached just like the President or any other official.

I think the electoral college out dated, then people didnt have access to the same media and news we have now... or education... now we are all educated and well informedThe reason for the electoral college is to prevent large population areas from dominating the elections. If it were not for the electoral college, only California, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, and Florida would have to vote. The founders were very wary about that and came up with a smart solution.

. If it were not for the electoral college, only California, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, and Florida would have to vote.


Don't forget Texas since it's #2 in population. :smile:

They can be impeached just like the President or any other official.
yeah, but would representative impeach them for doing their job? doubtful... would the people not elect them again if they had a chance? of course :)

How do you get into the electoral college? That one's a bit vauge to me.

How do you get into the electoral college? That one's a bit vauge to me.
my american govt teacher said you basically apply with a party... and its not too hard as most people dont apply for it in some states... but i dont know how accurate it is


sry im dont for the night <3 <3

yeah, but would representative impeach them for doing their job? doubtful... would the people not elect them again if they had a chance? of course :)

:yeahthat:

The reason for the electoral college is to prevent large population areas from dominating the elections. If it were not for the electoral college, only California, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, and Florida would have to vote. The founders were very wary about that and came up with a smart solution.

Yeah, but the number of electoral votes that each state gets is based on its population. You see in every election how the candidates fight over certain states because of thier higher number of electoral votes. I'm tired of the high population areas of Maryland taking over the electoral votes. In the last election, more counties voted Republican, however, because the high population counties (Montgomery, Baltimore, Prince Georges, etc.) voted Democrat they got ALL The electoral votes. This makes my vote insignificant. That's why all states should hand out electoral votes by percentage - not winner take all.

But I'm a big fan of your idea to break it down and give electoral votes by percentage of popular vote in a state instead of winner takes all.
That may end up defeating the major benefit of the electoral college - that population centers can't dominate the country.

As has been discussed here many times - and I think with the same people - one of the main reasons it was implemented was because in the days of the Constitution, you had candidates from all over the country running for President - not from political parties. Since someone from Massachusetts wasn't likely to even KNOW about the person from Virginia or Pennsylvania, you'd have a wide field, with votes coming in only regionally.

But what this meant was, a population center (such as Virginia, the most populous state by far at that time) could easily dominate the Presidency indefinitely. Add to that the existing loyalty to each person's colony (which doesn't exist at the same level today - people at that time thought of their *colony* as their 'nation'), and you could have a fledgling nation collapsing, because they couldn't unite.

The major benefit that I still see in the electoral college is that a Presidential candidate must have broad support in order to be elected. True, it's still almost impossible to get elected without the support of a small number of states. But Strom Thurmond actually took four southern states in '48 with about 7% of the vote, as did Wallace in '68 with 8% of the vote. They didn't have *national* support, but they did have strong regional support. Contrast them with Ross Perot in '92, who got a whopping 18% of the vote, but NO ELECTORAL VOTES.

With a field of three or more candidates, it's actually possible to win the popular vote, but not actually win any electoral votes. And that's how it should be. As in the college football polls, if you can't come in first place with anyone, you don't belong in first place. You shouldn't be elected President because you're everybody's second choice.

I also favor the concept of representatives casting votes, rather than popular votes. We're not a democracy, but a republic, as many recently love to remind us. As such, we don't vote as a population on every bill on the Hill, but we elect men to make those decisions for us. There are advantages to a republic over a democracy. A republic can guarantee that a minority still has a voice; a democracy means that the majority view will *always* rule. That seems ok in a nation where people are ethnically or racially homogeneous - but in a nation such as *Iraq*, it could still spell disaster, because you can't hope to hold a country together if the majority population can control the minority ones without answering to anyone.

A democracy at its worst is mob rule; you don't get that in a republic.

Good post. Covers my thoughts pretty thoroughly.

The thing that really interests me is this:

That may end up defeating the major benefit of the electoral college - that population centers can't dominate the country.

I'd like to see an analysis of what things would have looked like over the years had we an electoral system where you win or lose a district, as MAine and Nebraska do.

My thought is that it would help even further to limit the power of population centers.

Maryland would be something like 3-5 or 4-4, not all blue.

Texas wouldn't be all red.

California wouldn't be all blue.

I'd like to see those numbers.

It just seems so unfair that we can send, in our district, Republican after Republican to DC in the House yet be a state so solidly blue in the senate and in Presidential elections.

I'm sure people in blue areas of red states feel the same.

Texas wouldn't be all red.

California wouldn't be all blue.

But I think the population centers would STILL tend to dominate elections, even so. It means that in some small states, where maybe 5 electoral votes go Republican - 1 might go to the Democrats. In states like California, Republicans wouldn't gain that many - just because the majority of the state would be *red*, the regions that ARE red are represented by only a few electors.

Even in Maryland, Republicans would pick up *two* electors.

http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/state.php?year=2004&fips=24&f=0

SAM >> Very good points.

Allow my little blonde brain to process... :dork:

Like I said before, in the last election, the populous areas did have control - at least that was the case in Maryland. Yet the electoral college is supposed to stop that from happening - and it doesn't. Maryland had FAR more "Red" counties, yet Kerry got the votes because the few populous counties voted "blue." If this happens on a state level, then it must happen on a National level too.

I completely agree with your thoughts on Republic vs. Democratic governments. But wouldn't it be dangerous to allow the House to vote the President for us. Wouldn't party lines become even more of an issue than they are know? Wouldn't you have a mostly Republican House voting in the Republican, and vice versa?

SAM >> Very good points.

I completely agree with your thoughts on Republic vs. Democratic governments. But wouldn't it be dangerous to allow the House to vote the President for us. Wouldn't party lines become even more of an issue than they are know? Wouldn't you have a mostly Republican House voting in the Republican, and vice versa?Well it only does THAT when no majority occurs in the Electoral College. Ironically, it happened the VERY FIRST TIME there was anything resembling the "popular" vote, in 1824. There were several candidates, and Andrew Jackson won the "popular" vote, and even got the most electoral votes - but the requirement is a *MAJORITY* of electoral votes - which, in a close election *without* winner take all, could very well happen. THEN the decision - as per the Constitution, went to vote in the House - where they surprisingly voted for Adams!

If it was done proportionately - imagine if in 2000, Nader had received ONE vote from ONE elector in ONE district -THAT would have triggered a House vote. Winner-take-all generally keeps weak third-party candidates from being spoilers in a national election.

I know sometimes it doesn't seem "democratic" to have representatives do our thinking for us. But it works fairly well - I wouldn't want to have to depend on the entire populace remaining informed on *every* issue just to render an intelligent vote on every bill. Even the design of both houses of Congress has some of this - the House is designed to be the "people's" chamber, where the average man hashes out the legal matters. The Senate is supposed to be the elite chamber, where the more statesman-like persons discuss the matters on a more expert level. The snobs, really. The House resembles the tribunes of Rome; the Senate resembles the Roman Senate. The House proposes, the Senate disposes.