Has the Electorial College out lived it purpose ?
- Thread starter mondoman
- Start date
SmallTown
Football season!
It allows politicians the ability to focus most of their energy on a few "high win" states.
People should be allowed to elect the president, not states. For the reasons given here why we should have the electoral college, the opposition can use them to state their case.
But this is a very bad time to discuss this issue because people from both sides aren't thinking straight because currently this notion would break down upon party lines because of the recent election. Anyone who says we should do away with the electoral college are blasted for being sour grape liberals. Ones who are for it are labeled as republicans that are worried their man would look bad because without the college Gore would be president (This is one reason I am THANKFUL that we had the electoral college during the 2000 election!)
So I would say wait a couple of election cycles before bringing up this topic. That way there won't be any name calling or "nah-nah-nah"s going back and forth.
People should be allowed to elect the president, not states. For the reasons given here why we should have the electoral college, the opposition can use them to state their case.
But this is a very bad time to discuss this issue because people from both sides aren't thinking straight because currently this notion would break down upon party lines because of the recent election. Anyone who says we should do away with the electoral college are blasted for being sour grape liberals. Ones who are for it are labeled as republicans that are worried their man would look bad because without the college Gore would be president (This is one reason I am THANKFUL that we had the electoral college during the 2000 election!)
So I would say wait a couple of election cycles before bringing up this topic. That way there won't be any name calling or "nah-nah-nah"s going back and forth.
Actually, one of the purposes of the electoral college was to motivate politicians from concentrating completely on a few large population states. Originally, this was to address concerns by low population states, that they would be completely dominated by high population states. Every state is suppose to be an equal entity in the union. This is the reason for the senate, where every state gets exactly two representatives, and this was originally the reason for the electoral college. Unfortunately, in my opinion, this original reason for the electoral college has failed, do the how extremely high the population of some states has become as compared to others. This extreme population in states such as California, has allowed politicians to concentrate on a few "high win" states. Exactly as they would under a popular vote.
You have to remember that the united states was never intended to be a single, unilateral, government. This country was designed as a collection of state governments working together. The federal governments only purpose was to deal with other countries and manage disagreements between the states. Since the civil war, a strong federalist movement has resulted in the usurping, by the federal government, of powers specifically reserved to the states by the constitution and the 10th amendment. The United States is not a collection of individuals, it is a collection of states, which are in turn a collection of individuals. Of coarse, there are allot of people out there doing there best to change this, but I hardly think that we are quite ready to take the United States out of the United States of America.
Here is a quote from an article on the electoral college at
http://jceb.co.jackson.mo.us/fun_stuff/electoral_college.htm
“A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.”
Here’s another from
http://www.multied.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html
“The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.
The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power.”
Its interesting to note though, that the 20 minutes I spent looking this up on the web, I probably came across 50 different opinions on the electoral colleges purpose. What I posted above seemed to be the most common though.
Oz
You're all F'in Mad...
I think you really have to rememer that the founding fathers of our country created a Republic and NOT a direct democracy. (Recite the Pledge of Allegiance.) "...to the REPUBLIC for which it stands..." It doesn't say "to the Democracy for which it stands." Our Republic is created through a democratic process, but it's still a representative controlled government which includes the Electoral College.
Hell yes the Electoral College has lived out its purpose. Come on, so what if George W. Bush carried more counties. Al Gore receive more popular votes than George Bush. How can it be that the man that did not win the most votes, wins? That is not democratic and it is an awful thing for the American Republic to endure.
Let's go back into history and see the mess that the Electoral College put us into. In 1824, Andrew Jackson carried 40% of the popular vote to John Q. Adams' 31%. He also won more electoral votes, but he did not win a majority of them. Thus the outcome was decided by the House of Representatives, which voted for Adams over Jackson. This man won more than 9% of the popular vote yet the Electoral College kept the obvious choice of the people from entering the White House. This proceeded to happen three more times - all to Democrats.
I think that the Electoral College hinders participation in American democracy. Bush voters in Maryland had to wonder if their vote really did matter because no matter what, Gore would carry this state and all ten of its electoral votes. Why then should they vote? This was sentiment that I heard many Republicans voice, especially here in the county where there was no competitive race with a viable GOP candidate. And why should Democrats in Kansas vote when there is no chance that a Democrat will carry that state and its four electoral votes. If American elections were based on popular vote, such as gubernatorial races, many more voters would feel that their vote counted. In all honesty, I feel that the only votes that mattered last time were in Florida and a small amount of other close states such as Iowa, New Hampshire, and Tennessee.
The Electoral College is inherently flawed and unfair. In South Dakota, there is an electoral vote per 251,615 residents. In California, there is an electoral vote per 618,181 residents. Thus why do voters in South Dakota receive more electoral votes per ratio than Californian voters? That is unfair. If the Electoral college was created so "high concentrations of morons in a few densely populated areas can't dictate to the rest of the nation," then it only forces the will of small amounts of people spread across wilderness on those highly-concentrated amounts of morons. I don't care if the morons are spread across America or if they are close together, they are more of them than the backwards conservatives that live in shacks in the mountains in this nation. They wanted Al Gore and he got more votes.
While I favor repealing the Electoral College, there are some reforms that I think are quite interesting and progressive. Instead of awarding all the electoral votes of a state to the outright winner of the state, the electoral votes would be awarded as follows. The statewide winner would receive the two electoral votes of the United States senators and one for each congressional district that he or she carried. The statewide loser could still gain some electoral votes if he or she carried a congressional district. Such a reform has passed in Maine and Nebraska and similar attempts were made in North Carolina and some other states. Another possible reform is to give the same amount of electoral votes to a candidate that coincides with their percentage in the state. For example, if a candidate carries 45% of the popular vote in a state, he or she receives 45% of the electoral votes. I have more but the wife is telling me that we have to go to the grocery store. More later...
Let's go back into history and see the mess that the Electoral College put us into. In 1824, Andrew Jackson carried 40% of the popular vote to John Q. Adams' 31%. He also won more electoral votes, but he did not win a majority of them. Thus the outcome was decided by the House of Representatives, which voted for Adams over Jackson. This man won more than 9% of the popular vote yet the Electoral College kept the obvious choice of the people from entering the White House. This proceeded to happen three more times - all to Democrats.
I think that the Electoral College hinders participation in American democracy. Bush voters in Maryland had to wonder if their vote really did matter because no matter what, Gore would carry this state and all ten of its electoral votes. Why then should they vote? This was sentiment that I heard many Republicans voice, especially here in the county where there was no competitive race with a viable GOP candidate. And why should Democrats in Kansas vote when there is no chance that a Democrat will carry that state and its four electoral votes. If American elections were based on popular vote, such as gubernatorial races, many more voters would feel that their vote counted. In all honesty, I feel that the only votes that mattered last time were in Florida and a small amount of other close states such as Iowa, New Hampshire, and Tennessee.
The Electoral College is inherently flawed and unfair. In South Dakota, there is an electoral vote per 251,615 residents. In California, there is an electoral vote per 618,181 residents. Thus why do voters in South Dakota receive more electoral votes per ratio than Californian voters? That is unfair. If the Electoral college was created so "high concentrations of morons in a few densely populated areas can't dictate to the rest of the nation," then it only forces the will of small amounts of people spread across wilderness on those highly-concentrated amounts of morons. I don't care if the morons are spread across America or if they are close together, they are more of them than the backwards conservatives that live in shacks in the mountains in this nation. They wanted Al Gore and he got more votes.
While I favor repealing the Electoral College, there are some reforms that I think are quite interesting and progressive. Instead of awarding all the electoral votes of a state to the outright winner of the state, the electoral votes would be awarded as follows. The statewide winner would receive the two electoral votes of the United States senators and one for each congressional district that he or she carried. The statewide loser could still gain some electoral votes if he or she carried a congressional district. Such a reform has passed in Maine and Nebraska and similar attempts were made in North Carolina and some other states. Another possible reform is to give the same amount of electoral votes to a candidate that coincides with their percentage in the state. For example, if a candidate carries 45% of the popular vote in a state, he or she receives 45% of the electoral votes. I have more but the wife is telling me that we have to go to the grocery store. More later...
Oh, pooh, Dems - you're just mad.
My better idea would be to split the electoral votes by Representative district. If a candidate wins in that district, he wins that electoral vote, with the 2 extras going to the candidate who wins the most districts in that state.
Oops - after I posted I saw that you had said basically the same thing. Good idea, huh?
My better idea would be to split the electoral votes by Representative district. If a candidate wins in that district, he wins that electoral vote, with the 2 extras going to the candidate who wins the most districts in that state.
Oops - after I posted I saw that you had said basically the same thing. Good idea, huh?
But of course you realize, Dems, that if the electoral votes were dispersed that way, Gore would have REALLY gotten his azz smacked!
The whole point is that we are not a democracy. We are a republic. And in a republic, democratic majority does not always rule.
It depends on what you consider fair. The issue is to balance out the power of the states, not the individuals. Every state is an equal entity withing the Union. Very few of the low population areas in this country would ever have considered becoming a state if they thought they would be dominated my more populous ones. Although, the electoral college has failed in this balancing, in my opinion, do to the extremely high population of some states, that does not change its initial purpose. Replacing it with popular vote fails to address this issue as well. The only way we can remain the United States, is if each state has a roughly equal say in how the union is run. Otherwise you might as well disolve the power of the states and make them nothing more then a second level of the federal government.
You understand that how electoral votes are divided is determined by the individual state, don't you? While some states constitutions require all votes to go to the majority winner, this is not true of all states. In some states, elector's can vote as they choose. It just happens that all elector's voted for the majority winner in the last few elections, but this has not always been the case. Regardless, it's the individual states right to determine how they want to do it.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
democrats are democrats for a reason...
Love of mob rule (pure democracy)...unless, of course, we're talking about getting their way by any means necessary, IE abortion, quotas, 2nd amendment restrictions etc.
In just about every instance a democrat’s position can be compared directly to juvenile behavior; they want "it" because they want "it".
This is nothing new in human behavior, mob mentality, and the founders allowed for it brilliantly with the EC.
Gore came THIS close to winning any way even with his disgraceful attempts to have overseas military personnel votes thrown out, thus they'd say all is fine with the EC as their wants would have been satisfied for the time being.
Bottom line, you have to think about it and come to the conclusion that pure democracy is not the be all and end all, that what is right must often overcome what the masses want at any given moment.
Otherwise, you just quit thinking in terms of right and wrong and just go with the mob. Like being a kid, it's easier.
Love of mob rule (pure democracy)...unless, of course, we're talking about getting their way by any means necessary, IE abortion, quotas, 2nd amendment restrictions etc.
In just about every instance a democrat’s position can be compared directly to juvenile behavior; they want "it" because they want "it".
This is nothing new in human behavior, mob mentality, and the founders allowed for it brilliantly with the EC.
Gore came THIS close to winning any way even with his disgraceful attempts to have overseas military personnel votes thrown out, thus they'd say all is fine with the EC as their wants would have been satisfied for the time being.
Bottom line, you have to think about it and come to the conclusion that pure democracy is not the be all and end all, that what is right must often overcome what the masses want at any given moment.
Otherwise, you just quit thinking in terms of right and wrong and just go with the mob. Like being a kid, it's easier.