Electoral College Debate
 

Hi guys/gals,

For my communication class's final exam, we are doing a debate. My topic is the positive reasons why we should keep the electoral college. Now, I don't really agree with this topic, but it is my assignment and I must do the debate to pass the class. Therefore, if anyone has any information for me, I would certainly appreciate it.

Thanks in advance!

http://www.nationalreview.com/gregg/...0410250753.asp

http://www.ecmpostreview.com/2000/no...Electoral.html

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/j...20041020.shtml

http://www.prometh.com/Radcap/Editorial/0201.asp

The purpose of the electoral college is to make the candidates go to the smaller states, instead of just going to the bigger states.

The idea is to have a president that is a national official, instead of a regional one, and to insure that people in small states have SOME say in the political process.

It's so the USA doesnt consist solely of New York, California, and Texas.

And unless you live in New York City or Los Angeles you better hope it never goes away!

Im doing a paper on this myself. Heres some helpful links. Remember that a direct vote favors big cities and rural areas can be left out. An electoral college (doesnt have to be same as ours) helps fight a tyranny of the majority.

Fed paper #68

Math Against Tyranny

Paper on The Electoral College (in pdf)

The Electoral College also makes it more of a game of strategy. Each candidate has to look at the states and decide which ones are worth their time and money. The other advantage of the college is the fear of the recount. Under the current system you might have to recount one or two close states, could you imagine if we had to recount the entire US?

Keeping the electoral college would stop larger problems if recounts were called for. I however do believe the electoral college needs to be remade.

Sometimes pro-electoral-college arguments state that a candidate for president could win by campaigning in a few key cities. But these arguments are based on the hypothetical situation where candidates are able to get 100% of the vote in any given city they choose, very unrealistic.

The electoral college is a check on mass hysteria, something that is more likely now thanks to mass media than when the constitution was written.

Amen. Thanks to this factor alone, I never turn on my television except to watch college football, the simpsons, or a dvd.

There's an article in the journal Public Choice (late 1996 I believe) about Alan Natapoff of MIT that is very good. The Discover article, "Math Against Tyranny" (linked above), is about it. Might as well go directly to the source though.

Because in the USA there always have been and there always will be more people living in urban than rural areas, it is important to protect the minority. Of course it's unrealistic to get all of the urban vote--it's also unrealistic to get all of the rural vote. John Kerry won very few counties in this election, but he won most of them big. George Bush had a similar comfortable majority in many of the counties that he won. This means that there's an obvious difference between what urbanites want and what the country hicks want.

So, the forefathers, geniuses that they were, devised a system based on population but also weighted toward those living in rural areas. This helps protect states' rights, an important issue (although it was much more important then).

Unfortunately, you are totally right. What do you think the Senate is? Every state, regardless of size, gets 2 senators. That is outrageously silly - Rhode Island, with about 6 inhabitants, gets the same voice as the millions upon millions in New York or California or Texas or Illinois or Florida?

God bless our founding fathers, eh?

Are you saying their voices are any less important or worthy then the denizens that inhabit the megalopolises(sp) of the respective coasts?

I think he is saying they are all equally worthy, and should be counted equally.

um, it's called a federal republic. That's why we have a BIcameral system. Perhaps you forgot we have a House of Representatives as well? That one is based on the population of states. RI does NOT have the same voice as CA or IL. RI has 2 SENATORS as well as CA and IL, but RI only has TWO Representatives, whereas CA has 53 Representatives and IL has 19.

This all goes to the core of the matter: our government is not run as it was intended to be run. Currently, the federal government has many responsibilities - most of which are not afforded to it by the constitution. The United States is a Federal Republic, meaning that each state is essentially its own government, with a federal government for defense and a few national issues. We have a very well thought-out bicameral system of government which is very representative of the mindset in which our government was created. The House is based on population, hence it is the people's representation in the federal government. In the house, each congressperson is representing roughly 700,000 people, with a minimum of one congressperson per state. This is our direct voice in the federal government. The senate is the *state's* voice in the federal government. Hence, each state has 2 senators. This is representative of the interest in state's rights. Without the senate, it starts to reach a point (considering all the other ways in which the federal government has usurped state powers) where we may as well just get rid of states altogether - at least in the form we know them as now. The federal government was not intended to be the primary effector on people's lives - the state government was. It sure makes a lot of sense when you think about it too, that most decisions that effect your life should be made by a government much more closely associated with you.