jillian
Princess
Again... which doesn't mean it should CONTINUE to be that way.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Again... which doesn't mean it should CONTINUE to be that way.
How the electors are chosen is a matter of state election law. Kentucky actually could forego the popular vote and simply select them via the state legislature. While Hawaii can apportion them based on popular vote. And Texas can go with the winner take all format of the popular vote.
So the first argument in favor of the EC is that it is one less thing the fed holds sway on. Score one for states rights.
Remember Florida in Y2K? That was only a small part of the state. Can you imagine a nationwide recount...... ugleee. Score one for practicality.
Any group will vote thier own interest first. A direct democracy would quickly make our nation insolvent, lazy, and ineffective. A direct vote for president would be a step in that direction. First the White House and eventually referendums on how much the monthy stipend for everyone would be. Score one for a Republic v. Democracy.
There are other reasons. But it's time to get ready for work. We can hash it out more tomorrow.
It also does not mean it should change. The President is elected by the States. The Congress is elected by the people. Ensures that States retain some power.
Don't like the condescension? Too bad. When someone can't see the obvious importance of the system the way it is, it is rather perplexing. I get bull shit arguments like this from jillian, but you seem to get it most of the time. That you don't get how unfair a popular vote only system would be to the states is really puzziling. Again I look forward to your next post stating that the U.S. Senate should be done away with and states should be abolished. While your at it please explain how a state like Vermont, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maine. Alaska, Montana, Wyoming or Minnesta matter in a popular vote only system.
An election is about getting votes and lots of them. Thus any smart candidate is only going to focus on areas of high population concentration. It is the electoral college that ensures that every state and thus every citizen's voice is heard.
Or maybe not. This is one of those concepts that should[/ii] be fairly simple to grasp. If you're so upset about the EC, I'm honestly surprised I haven't seen any posts from you about how awful the democratic parties presidential nomination system is because they essentially do it the same way. What ever will you do if/when Obama wins the majority of delegates, but Hillary has the Super delegates?
If you don't like the EC then by extension you may as well be for the abolishment of the states. You're getting dangerously close to saying what really want. Fuck the constitution and how the founders set up the country. If it sounds like a leap it isn't. You claim you want everyone to have an eqaul say. Well that is exactley what the EC does. It makes sure that each state is proportionate. If we have just a popular vote system then you may as well get rid of the states because you will have effectively made the smaller states meaningless in a national election.
Although I follow you and agree that the states need equal representation. Wouldn't you admit that say a state like Maryland or Texas, receive very little attention during the general election because the canididates know how those states are going to vote. Texas- Republican, Maryland- Democrat
When are these states issues heard?
Wrong. I can easily dislike the ellectoral college AND be for states rights. The two are not mutually inclusive. Overhauling an obviously flawed system does not necessitate the states giving up ANY rights. It means the electoral college needs to be fixed, or replaced.
Perhaps you could see a bit more clearly if you quit looking at the topic through a coffee stir?
The US a Federal Republic, not a democracy.I believe that the electoral college isn't needed in today's society. How do you feel?
Land doesn't vote -- states do.That... and land shouldn't vote... people should.
Then you need to take that issue up with your state legislature, and lobby it to change the election law to award electors proportionally.My complaint is the electoral college should represent the people in each state they represent. So much for your Federalization of the US theory.
Certainly, you know that, in political and legal terms, The People and The States are seperate entities, each with its own set of rights, etc.If, as you profess, the PEOPLE are the State, then seems that giving more power to the INDIVIDUAL'S vote empowers the state.
maybe, but prolly not.Proportional allocation of Electors will result in Congress selecting our President and Vice President. You have of course read HOW that works right?
maybe, but prolly not.
The last couple elections, as close as they were, would have had the same result.
I say, out with the electroal college and in with the popular vote...of course this means that had it been this way in 2000, Bush would never have been elected in the first place.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_college
An electoral college is a set of electors who are empowered to elect a candidate to a particular office. Often these electors represent a different organization or entity, with each organization or entity represented by a particular number of electors or with votes weighted in a particular way. Many times, though, the electors are simply important persons whose wisdom, it is hoped, would provide a better choice than a larger body. The system can ignore the wishes of a general membership, whose thinking may not be considered. When applied on a national scale, such as the election of a country's leader, the popular vote can on occasion run counter to the electoral college's vote, and for this reason, there are some who feel that the system is a distortion of true democracy.[citation
I believe that the electoral college isn't needed in today's society. How do you feel?
That's true, though at this point, its unlikely. In any event, if that's the case, it goes to Congress. Note that non--proportional allocation can also lead to this if the 3rd candidate is strong enough.Proportional means that when a Nader or a Perot run, they can win electors. That means in a 3 way race no one may win the needed number. It has happened once in our History.
LMAO ... I consider your condescension rather delusional, actually. So really, it's too bad for you. You assume a position of superiority while turning a blind eye to an obviously flawed system.
We can start with your assumption that I am arguing for a Federal level popular vote only system. Those are YOUR words, not mine. I said dump the electoral college and caucuses. I did not state at any point in time that states should not be represented fairly.
So you can quit looking forward to a post from me arguing a point you have dreamed up for me to argue when I said nothing of the sort.
Next time you presume to assume a position for me, do try and get your ducks in arow first and you won't be wiping all that egg off your face.
I do have to agree with you on this point. This is a great counter point, in order for the states to have equal representation. I believe if nothing else though, the electors should be bound to vote according to how the state popular vote dictates. You do have a great point though, if we completely scrap the electoral college how does say Wyoming have the same representation as say New York?