Electorial College: Continue / Stop
 

I was debating this subject with some of my friends. It is in my view that’s the US is at a point the Electoral College should be done away with, relying on popular vote for determining the presidential candidate. We came close to seeing that with the last election.

There argument is that 5 main cities would basically control the outcome of the vote. I see it in terms a glass jar: of the 291,275,494 living in the US the eligible 212,688,715 people each put a vote in for the candidate of their choice. Whomever has the most votes wins. The one aspect I would personally change is that in order to vote a person has to pass the basic test one takes to be a citizen of this country: basic history, political understanding, etc.

With regards to the Electoral College consider what the founding fathers were trying to solve. They faced the difficult question of how to elect a president in a nation that:

• was composed of thirteen large and small States jealous of their own rights and powers and suspicious of any central national government
  
• contained only 4,000,000 people spread up and down a thousand miles of Atlantic seaboard barely connected by transportation or communication (so that national campaigns were impractical even if they had been thought desirable)
  
• believed, under the influence of such British political thinkers as Henry St John Bolingbroke, that political parties were mischievous if not downright evil

How, then, to choose a president without political parties, without national campaigns, and without upsetting the carefully designed balance between the presidency and the Congress on one hand and between the States and the federal government on the other?

The Constitutional Convention considered several possible methods of selecting a president.

• One idea was to have the Congress choose the president. This idea was rejected, however, because some felt that making such a choice would be too divisive an issue and leave too many hard feelings in the Congress. Others felt that such a procedure would invite unseemly political bargaining, corruption, and perhaps even interference from foreign powers. Still others felt that such an arrangement would upset the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.
  
• A second idea was to have the State legislatures select the president. This idea, too, was rejected out of fears that a president so beholden to the State legislatures might permit them to erode federal authority and thus undermine the whole idea of a federation.
  
• 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.
  
• Finally, a so-called "Committee of Eleven" in the Constitutional Convention proposed an indirect election of the president through a College of Electors.

Should the electorial college stay or be discontinued?

It should be discontinued but most people do not realize how hard that will be. I think if they started now they could have have a system in place by 2008 though. The thing about the popular vote is untill recently it was completly impossible. We do not have an accurate way to measure every single vote. (For examples of this see the 2000 election)


Sun Tzu: BTW that orange is IMPOSSIBLE to read with sandstorm.

Since representing individual cities fairly regardless of how many people are in them has nothing to do with democracy, there is absolutely no reason to keep the electoral college. "One person, one vote" means just that. People are important in democracy, and if there is less diversity of opinion in a big city, so be it - those people need to be represented fairly.

trash the shit.

it's unfair. cuz of it, we dont have a democratically elected leader (so, what's the term for bush?)

I dont see anything wrong with the way things are.

I think you might call him a Republican elected leader! You might call him the President of the United States! You can also call him the next President of the United States! Or you can just call him George.

The Electoral College out lived it usefulness long ago. Modern communication has eliminated any need whatsoever for it. I don't understand the problems some see in eliminating it (other than ammending the Constitution) - all that would have to be changed is to eliminate the two words "electors for" the candidate and put the candidate's name on the ballot. It would be really nice if there were someway to eliminated the time differences or voting hours between the East Coast and Hawaii - or at least between the East and West Coasts. Maybe the networks learned a lesson on predicting final outcomes - that might help.

The Electoral College is ridiculous. I'm a Politcal Science major and my professors, along with most others, think it's outdated. Other countries laugh at how a Daddy's Boy, monkey-eared, dumbass can become the 43d President of the United States while receiving fewer votes than his closest competitor.

We do not live in a democracy, we live in a republic.
The mob does not rule here.
Take a look at this map, it is the vote by counties, I think the electorial college worked just as our founding fathers intended.

http://www.oakparkgop.org/imgs/e2000map.jpg

So the mass concentration of urban, welfare loving people can decide how this country is run. I really hope not, keep it the way it is.

Looks like a job for:
http://www.preparationh.co.uk/images/large_gel.gif

I don't see the problem with the Parliamentary system (aside from republicans currently controlling the legislature, of course).

I suppose my favorite part of it is Questions and Answers for the prime minister. :)

wow 5th grade humor, good answer.

spin the wheel Vanna

Since this thread's getting hijacked anyway, technically Vanna just pushes the little tiles, she never has to do anything physically demanding, like spinning the wheel.

I am terribly sorry, I lost track of my silly ass game shows.

I should have said,
top 3 answers to why liberals like to whine.....survey says......

it's one person, one vote.

how come your vote counts more than mine?? dont you think that's unfair?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Liquor Dealer
[B]I think you might call him a Republican elected leader!

correction - he was not elected into office, at least not by the people

In the spirit of our hijacked thread...
You know, Ray Combs, one of the hosts of Family Feud, hung himself. Some of the more rabid conservatives should follow suit.:rolleyes:

As far as the actual topic, the electoral college works when all the votes are actually counted.

I happen to live in a state that is blue on this map, my vote only counted to close the gap for my fellow hard working repubs. Between the non-working, welfare living, bus them to the polls junkies that voted for more of my tax dollars.

What I am saying is these people should not have more of a say than the people who happen to feed america.

Did you look at the map? Cities should not rule this country.

so, only republicans are hard working?? haha, that's a generalization 10x.


and you're saying that "non-working, welfare living, bus them to the polls " should not be allowed to vote, but should be governed according to your vote? they're 2nd class citizens?

If I have to pay to feed able body people who refuse to work because welfare is easier, than YES they are second class citizens,
and should not be able to vote.

I wish I could vote to do less and get money for nothing.
But I am not happy living off others.
the world doesnt owe me squat.

Back to the map, the highest areas of public assitance happen to be blue.
Would you care to elaborate as to why this is?

where exactly did u get the map from, i'd like to look.

and are you saying that everyone who receives a welfare check is too lazy to work?? again you're generalizing.

I hear your vote counts more if you vote with a buddy.

Whoa; another interesting poll would be if anyone thinks another US civil war could ever erupt again.

Nope.
I don't think so.
I like the fact that each state has a say in the matter.

People forget the FACT that this nation is made up of 50 states.
All with their own unique laws, character, agendas & needs.
If you got rid of the EC then you would have CA & NY dominating the rest of the country.
That's where politics would be focused, that's where the money would flow.
Everything else would be ignored.

Keep it the way it is, everyone gets their say
and the future president needs to pay attention to everyone,
and work for their vote.

The United States was never intended to be a Democracy. It is a Representative Republic. It was also never intended to be one person, one vote. Only those with a vested interest in the continued success of the Republic could vote, and that ususally meant the head of each household. I think that people on welfare should not have a voice in determining the future of a government they are dependant on for income.

But aren't the people who feed America also on welfare?

Yes, but they call it 'subsidized farming'.

And single-family farms are very quickly disappearing across the country :(

So it's the big business farms against the money laundering welfare recipients, eh?

I think the Electoral College provides a balance unforeseen by our forefathers. It is the great equalizer of American Politics. Throughout this thread there is no mention of the second leg of our awkward beast- the Congress. They are elected by popular vote and provide a check against the Presidency. Just because the vote didn't fall in your favor doesn't mean you have to change the rules of the game.

i still havent recevied a good answer to my question

how come your vote counts more than mine?

And what percent - generally, would you assume, of those that receive welfare checks, would take a job of any kind under any circumstance? I have several people a day come into my place asking for work! I have offered to hire several of them - you should see the shock go across their face when that happens - they don't want a job but have to apply to keep their dole coming.

I don't have any figures but I'd bet you big bucks that 80% of those on welfare would't get off their lazy butts and go to work for anyone. Check out the numbers who are claiming and drawing unemployment - then check out the help wanted pages in your local newspaper - then tell me there's a problem. When the legitimate help wanted ads are all gone - then we'll talk about unemployment.

Oh yeah, Congress. Funny how we all forgot about them. Maybe it's because they're starting to look more and more like these:

<img src="http://oha.ci.alexandria.va.us/archaeology/images/ar-rubber-stamp.jpg">

Beautiful! Thanks for the chuckle- I needed that.

I do disagree however on your assesment of congress. They sure whittled down GW's tax cut.

This is soooo true! I hired a guy once and told him he could start right away. He said "Great. Just let me go get my work shoes from my car" and never came back! I haved tried to hire many people who were on Gov't Assistance who've simply turned down the job I've offered them.

The simple answer is it doesn't. Your vote counts as one vote in your state. Your state then sends it's delegates to Washington for the final tally. The states were given their delegates by Congress based on the 2000 Census. If you think you've been given a raw deal- write your congressman.

How come my vote counts more than yours - it probably didn't . Actually neither one of our votes probably made one iota of difference. I can explain why your vote may not have counted at all. Texas has 32 electors or votes in the electoral college. It has 5.95% of the voters in the US. There are 16,986,335 people in Texas (2000 Census). If the vote was split almost equally - one more vote for one candidate than the other, the candidate that got that one extra vote got everyone of Texas 32 electoral votes because it boils down to winner takes all. If yours was that one vote (in the example I gave) then your vote was the only vote in Texas that in this instance actually counted. If you were on the side that was one vote short - then yours, and none of those who voted for your candidates vote counted for anything except it figures into the popular vote which means absolutely positively nothing in the greater scheme of things.



You might check this out:

http://www.click2houston.com/sh/elec...05-195447.html

So Just What Is The Electoral College?
Remember The Electoral College From Social Studies? Here's A Refresher
As you may recall from social studies, when millions of Americans voted in the presidential election Tuesday, they were not actually voting for a candidate -- directly. The votes that count are the 270 cast by the members of the little-understood Electoral College.
It may have bored you back then -- and it's often viewed as an oddity -- but the low-profile ritual of the Electoral College is suddenly critically important. Because the race between George W. Bush and Al Gore is so close, the official voters of the Electoral College could conceivably pick a president that's not the same one chosen by a majority of the people.

Reason enough for a refresher course:

What it is: A group of representatives chosen by the voters of each state to elect the president and vice president. When Americans vote in a presidential election, they are technically picking representatives pledged to the candidates, not voting directly for the candidates themselves.

Who they are: Representatives are usually chosen by state committees or party conventions.

What they do: The electors meet on a day in December, often in their state capitals, and by custom or law vote for their party's choice for president and vice president.

How it's made up: Each state has as many votes in the Electoral College as the total of its senators and representatives in Congress.

How it works: In most cases, the candidate who wins the highest number of popular votes in a state gets all of that state's electoral votes.

By the numbers: A candidate needs 270 electoral votes out of 538 to win the presidency. Big states: California, 54 electoral votes; New York, 33; Texas, 32; Florida, 25; Pennsylvania, 23; Ohio, 21; Illinois, 22; Michigan, 18.

How it's changed: Before the emergence of two political parties, the candidate who came second in the electoral vote became vice president. Among other changes: the 23rd Amendment, ratified in 1961, enfranchised the District of Columbia, which has three electoral votes.

How it started: The process was chosen at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. The convention rejected the idea that Congress elect the president, on the grounds that he would be under the legislature's control, and rejected a proposal that citizens elect the president directly.

The ritual: In January, at a joint session in the House of Representatives, the president of the Senate opens the sealed certificates and one Democrat and one Republican from each house count the votes. The candidate getting a majority is declared elected.

The quirk: It is possible for a candidate to win the most electoral votes and become president even while losing the popular vote nationally. In 1824, 1876 and 1888, the winner of the popular vote lost the election.

What if there's a tie? In the event no candidate obtains a majority of electoral votes for president, the U.S. House of Representatives selects the president from among the top three contenders, with each state casting only one vote. One candidate must obtain a majority of votes to be elected. Similarly, if no one obtains an absolute majority for vice president, the U.S. Senate makes the selection from among the top two contenders for that office.

http://www.oakparkgop.org/imgs/e2000map.jpg

If you look at this map you will see that the majority of the country - area wise and state wise voted for George Bush - Gore carried basically only ther heavily populated metropolitan areas. The only place Gore even came close to winning this election - regardless of what Democrats would like to think, Bush kicked Gore's ass everywhere but in the electoral college - the only place that counts under today's laws.

Bush kicked Gore's ass everywhere but the electoral college, where the tipping of one state would have made the election Gore's, and of course, the popular vote. Don't think I'd let you forget about that one...

I also detect a slight racial undertone in some of these posts (not necessarily yours, Liquor Dealer)...

So you believe that if a person is collecting welfare or jobless that they belong to a racial minority?

I do not believe I would turn down free money either.

I used this in another thread also...just wanted to make my point yet again.
---------------
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/...g20020123.shtml




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seems to me a majority of the educators in this country are on the dumb welfare, non-working, lazy side of the vote.

I guess I am too.

I am waiting for someone to say black people shouldn't be aloud to vote anymore because that is basically what you are hinting at.

Everyone should have a vote. Everyone’s vote should be counted. Popular vote should choose the president. I don't care if you think all democrats are lazy, non-working, welfare living junkies, their vote counts as much as yours.

Why go through the dog and pony?

Has there ever been a true democracy?

Would converting to a true democracy from republic destroy America?

Keep the electoral college. Its there so that candidates don't ONLY need to campaign in a few cities to win an election. They have to pander to the midwest just as well.

Why is it that you think Welfare recipients= Black people? (this was stealthily ignored earlier in the thread) There are far more WHITE welfare recipients than all other races put together!

there was another post on tfp, about how bush was prepared to fight if he won the popular vote, but lost electoral college.

he was going to petition the electors to vote for him in the college, thus giving him the presidency.


that should tell you it's screwed up.

if some of these electors decide to switch their votes, we'd have a prez w/ a lot lesser votes than bush got.
and we wont be able to do shit, since it's constitutional

The hardest aspect for me to truly understand is the convergence of the deciding votes being in key areas. Does this mean that minds that think alike flock together? A city is more predominatley liberal than conservative, or other potical persuasion? I understand that poeple win terms because one party gets more than another, IMO it seems the vote across the country seems low because they feel their vote doesnt matter. I understand what is being said about the deciding areas, but that brings up another argument that I saw coming out earlier in this thread.

At first I thought this person was an cold corperate asshole spouting off (he was temping for Rush-who annoys me), but after hearing his whole argument I saw his side made reasonable sense as well:

Those who pay higher taxes should get more votes and if you dont pay taxes you dont vote. As I said when first hearing this I thought the guy was nuts, but he was looking at it in terms of what he is getting for his money. Why should someone who pays $900 in taxes get the same say as $20,000? My first reaction was "yeah so the elite wealthy can run the place", well they do anyway it seems to sometimes. I then looked at it in this sense two people go to the gas pump one pays $1.23 for a gallon of gas and the other pays $5.50 per gallon. What is person B getting any different than person A-nothing just more of a financial hickey. Of course I suppose this gets deep into what the 2 parties are all about.

This is still the United States of America. As long as the electoral college system is in place, states actually matter, and have some power. As soon as you get rid of it, you can expect many state powers to be stripped away -- just as they have when it comes to speed limits (bribery) and medical use of marijuana.

This is a failure of the tax system, not of the idea of equal representation.

geep: There are more whites on welfare than minorities as they account for 80% of the population in the U.S., not for any other reason.
It seems this has basically turned into a debate between those for majority rule and those who want the rights of the minority protected. This is exactly why I need my own country, of which I can be dictator. People don't know what's good for 'em.

as seretogis said, when you elected somebody into office, you are electing them to do more than just economic stuff.

government goes way beyond that.

so, a poor person gets no representation in areas like gay rights or other issues just because they dont pay enough taxes?

do we need the electoral college?
 

Im posing these questions to all you tilted heads. Is the electoral college still needed? Was it ever needed? Wthout it we would probably have a different prez right now so what are your thoughts?

If we were to use straight popular vote, candidates would only campaign on the coasts and metro areas. An electoral college, while not perfect, helps the smaller states keep a voice in politics. The downside is that a person voting in Idaho technacally has more of a say than a person in california.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ctoral+college

already a thread about this.

Good! Down with the left coast!

That's right. Without the electoral college, those of us in "flyover country" wouldn't have any say, or recieve any attention from the candidates at all. The electoral college fosters nationwide participaiton in the process.

IMO the only real controversy that ever really occurs over this is because of the really really really close elections (in the 2000 case being the most recent and most publicized one).

This isn't raelly an issue if a president has a much larger vote.

The electoral college has served its purpose - in cases where no candidate gets a majority (hell there have been elections of 45% vs. 43% and what not in the past) the electoral college does the job fine.

I find it in other ways though also flawed. First is that a state may ahve a majority but even if its a slight majority all of its votes may be dumped to the candidate. Theres pretty large minority groups and what not in states that garner a lot of votes but not enough and the state in the end gives up a large chunk to the opposing candidate.

Also I'd like to say it now that in a few years this will become a even larger issue.

Because of how polarized the parties have been, and yet at the same time the candidates have platforms closer and closer to each other, the voting sadly ends up more party based and more polarized and we may very well see more and more and more close elections to which one point a large controversy may very well occur.

Hopefully it won't cause anything too big but by that time it would IMO be best to change the system.

read penningtons post and shut your mouth.
Would you like to abolish the senate too. Its all a check and balance system of power.

wow gj - oh wait most of the nation has been moving to the "sunbelt" and other than a few major cities thats where most politicians focus their campaigning anyways

honestly it won't be an issue when elections are clearly going one way but when there are successions of close elections and controversy comes out on it, then people will think twice

I voted for Gore and I'd like to see it stay. It serves as a check on the population of our country. All other branches of the government have check on them, why shouldn't the voting public have one? In these days of constant nationwide communication it seems much more likely that a single entity (network, party, corporation, etc.) could use their influence create a tyranny of the masses. It is possible for electoral college members to vote against the polls if an explosive populist movement (What % of the population thought Iraq was behind 9/11?) emerges. I do think it should be reformed so that each electoral college member votes independently, irrespective to other electoral votes in their state.

That's a good point Locobot. Anyone have a good reason why that isn't so?

The only reason the federal gov't has a say in gay rights, abortion rights, and other social issues is due to the fact that they claim jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause, which has been stretched to be nigh-unrecognizable. It also happens that most decisions that the federal government makes on those issues are tied to money in some way, so yes, I do come down on the side of those that believe that only those paying taxes should vote. There is no reason that someone who lives solely on the public trough should have a say in what those that pay for the meal set before him.

Also, I'll put my view of the electoral college and the popular vote this way: the vote of the -people- elects your representatives. Both to the Congress, and incidentally, to the Electoral College. The -states- elect the President, via the Electoral College. "Your vote counts" in the decision of which way your state's vote is going to go. That is why a person can lose the popular vote and win the Presidency. The EC's purpose, as already stated, is to protect the rights of those who live in less populous areas of the country, and to keep a few large population areas from deciding issues for everyone.

What the by county map fails to show is how many of those states were decided for Gore based solely on the votes garnered from the large cities, regardless of the fact that a staggering geographical majority of the country chose Bush.

Yeah the map DOES fail to show the votes garnered by large cities - Bush had a geographical majority in the country but a lot of the areas added together may not even represent one area of votes in a large city.


For example, California on the map has a majority of its area Republicans - but the Democrats clearly won the vote in that one.

Same goes for other states where Dem's won.

fact of the matter is, a good majority of the population lives in teh cities so geographical doesn't even matter as much already - the way presdients win have already been campaigning in the big cities of states - yes even the small states as well as the large - but they still focus on population centers. Because even in states without large cities, winning a large number of votes int he cities may often be more than enough compared to the population of the rest of the state.

Trash it. One person, one vote. And a run-off for the top two contenders. Lets get the Dems and the Reps outa there.

And I don't think wealth should determine your right to vote as much as, say, whether you graduated jr. high school.

Is there a test that can determine whether you can think for yourself?