Is it Time for the Electoral College to Go?

As I've said before...we are a federal government system, as in a federation of states.

The Electoral College protects smaller states voices from being drowned out by the larger more populous states.

It is also the reason why every state is guaranteed two U.S. Senators regardless of population.



The argument presented here is that the electoral college gives some votes more weight than others.

So does the Senatorial System. California has two Senators representing a population of 36 million.

South Dakota has two Senators representing 812,000.

The reason, as we all know, is to protect the voice of the smaller states by keeping the largest most populous states from receiving an unfair advantage in congress.

The exact same reason we have an electoral college instead of direct popular vote.

Checks and balances.
 
Last edited:
Yes, well past time. In fact the federal government needs to be more accountable to the people. Ever since the Civil war it has assumed powers that go well beyond the constitution. We need some kind of way to hold national referendums in order to keep those in the Federal government honest.
Because we're a republic, and not a democracy.
 
Yes, well past time. In fact the federal government needs to be more accountable to the people. Ever since the Civil war it has assumed powers that go well beyond the constitution. We need some kind of way to hold national referendums in order to keep those in the Federal government honest.

Why would they follow a referendum when they ignore the Constitution and have standing armies. They can easily crush dissent.

.

Where is the prohibition on a standing army?
 
As I've said before...we are a federal government system, as in a federation of states.

The Electoral College protects smaller states voices from being drowned out by the larger more populous states.

It is also the reason why every state is guaranteed two U.S. Senators regardless of population.



The argument presented here is that the electoral college gives some votes more weight than others.

So does the Senatorial System. California has two Senators representing a population of 36 million.

South Dakota has two Senators representing 812,000.

The reason, as we all know, is to protect the voice of the smaller states by keeping the largest most populous states from receiving an unfair advantage in congress.

The exact same reason we have an electoral college instead of direct popular vote.

Checks and balances.

SOME of us get it and appreciate it for the balance of power that it brings...

Others... just simply want mob rule and tyranny of the masses...
 
Liberals are going to favor scrapping the Electoral College while Conservatives are going to favor keeping it. This goes beyond the understandable preference of conservatives for the Constitution as written and the Liberal willingness to change customs with the seasons.

If you look at a county-by-county map of the 2008 Presidential election you'll see why. There's a lot of overflow for liberal votes in urban areas but very efficient wins for conservatives in rural areas.

Not being either liberal or conservative, I have to go with the liberals on this one. The electoral college inhibits direct democracy at a high cost: one person, one vote. The original intent was to preserve Federalist designs and respect the sovereignty of states. But there are better ways to do that. Just as America went to direct elections of Senators with the 17th Amendment, another Amendment should eliminate the false +2 electoral votes given to every state.

In exchange for this, the liberals should compromise, and offer an amendment that addresses conservative concerns about Federalism. I would advise a Constitutional provision that clarifies the meaning of the Commerce Clause and overturns Wickard v. Filburn along with a host of Federal programs which should be state and local: especially including criminal statutes but also including economic programs which are more properly intrastate.






Ha ha. I'm just kidding. Liberal/Conservative compromise? In this country? :redface:
 
Liberals are going to favor scrapping the Electoral College while Conservatives are going to favor keeping it. This goes beyond the understandable preference of conservatives for the Constitution as written and the Liberal willingness to change customs with the seasons.

If you look at a county-by-county map of the 2008 Presidential election you'll see why. There's a lot of overflow for liberal votes in urban areas but very efficient wins for conservatives in rural areas.

Not being either liberal or conservative, I have to go with the liberals on this one. The electoral college inhibits direct democracy at a high cost: one person, one vote. The original intent was to preserve Federalist designs and respect the sovereignty of states. But there are better ways to do that. Just as America went to direct elections of Senators with the 17th Amendment, another Amendment should eliminate the false +2 electoral votes given to every state.

In exchange for this, the liberals should compromise, and offer an amendment that addresses conservative concerns about Federalism. I would advise a Constitutional provision that clarifies the meaning of the Commerce Clause and overturns Wickard v. Filburn along with a host of Federal programs which should be state and local: especially including criminal statutes but also including economic programs which are more properly intrastate.






Ha ha. I'm just kidding. Liberal/Conservative compromise? In this country? :redface:

It's easier to repeal 17th amendment.
 
If you have any questions on the issue of voting, you can see what Madison wrote. This is an excerpt from the Apr 17 1787 letter to Washington. I would suggest that you get it from a library as well as the works of Montesquieu, Hume (esp the perfect commonwealth) and Locke. If you have not ventured into these works you cannot possibly pretend to have any insight into what Madison was trying to accomplish. He was looking at the failings of previous republics and the reasons they failed.

The other reference I would suggest someone read is Federalist paper #39, also by Madison. There is an anti-federalist paper that touches on this too (kind of like the dissenting opinion on the SCOTUS). I'll look that up. I'm just growing weary of telling people how I interpret what was written on the subject, I think I'm better off just telling you where I get opinions from and letting someone else do the legwork. Most of it is available in some electronci form for little or no cost (like a dollar if anything).

Mike
 
Liberals are going to favor scrapping the Electoral College while Conservatives are going to favor keeping it. This goes beyond the understandable preference of conservatives for the Constitution as written and the Liberal willingness to change customs with the seasons.

If you look at a county-by-county map of the 2008 Presidential election you'll see why. There's a lot of overflow for liberal votes in urban areas but very efficient wins for conservatives in rural areas.

Not being either liberal or conservative, I have to go with the liberals on this one. The electoral college inhibits direct democracy at a high cost: one person, one vote. The original intent was to preserve Federalist designs and respect the sovereignty of states. But there are better ways to do that. Just as America went to direct elections of Senators with the 17th Amendment, another Amendment should eliminate the false +2 electoral votes given to every state.

In exchange for this, the liberals should compromise, and offer an amendment that addresses conservative concerns about Federalism. I would advise a Constitutional provision that clarifies the meaning of the Commerce Clause and overturns Wickard v. Filburn along with a host of Federal programs which should be state and local: especially including criminal statutes but also including economic programs which are more properly intrastate.






Ha ha. I'm just kidding. Liberal/Conservative compromise? In this country? :redface:

Don't make me dig up my "compromise is a dirty word" post. I despise compromise.

Mike
 
Actually 1 branch is split between direct proportional representation and set representate. . Look at the senate. the senate is based on states only, regardless of how many people are in a given state. Rhode island has the same pull as california in the senate. The house is set up as the direct proportional representative branch.

The office of the president was set up to represent the people of the states, not the people of the nation. That they are one and the same is not part of the system. The system was setup to reduce the impact of high land/population states and increase that of smaller states, by setting the electors as senators + representatives, not in the use of electors itself.

One has to remember the different compromises that were proposed before this system was reached. the plans varied from direct presidential election to vote by state, with the state legislatures deciding who they would vote for.

I think the composition of the Senate is enough to reflect the importance that States play in our system. I don't have a problem with Delaware getting equal voice to California on legislation (but I do have a problem with the Senate filibuster: 21 small states preventing the interests of 29 larger states). But allowing the States to also play such a prominent role in Presidential elections seems redundant. The States have great power and representation through the Senate. The people need a valve into the Federal system that can break through beyond the States. That should be the office of the Presidency. After all, the lawmaking body is the strongest in any republic, and it certainly is in the American republic. The States should be content with their prominent protections in that body.
 
do we need it anymore? Gallup polls have show than the american people prefer direct elections for president over the indirect electoral college.

It used to be necessary, back when we couldn't talk to each other by picking up a phone and we didn't have nationwide 24/7 news coverage.

California just became the latest state to vote to give all their electoral votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote, joining seven other states that have done so.

Is this the beginning of the end for the ec?

no.
 
Liberals are going to favor scrapping the Electoral College while Conservatives are going to favor keeping it. This goes beyond the understandable preference of conservatives for the Constitution as written and the Liberal willingness to change customs with the seasons.

If you look at a county-by-county map of the 2008 Presidential election you'll see why. There's a lot of overflow for liberal votes in urban areas but very efficient wins for conservatives in rural areas.

Not being either liberal or conservative, I have to go with the liberals on this one. The electoral college inhibits direct democracy at a high cost: one person, one vote. The original intent was to preserve Federalist designs and respect the sovereignty of states. But there are better ways to do that. Just as America went to direct elections of Senators with the 17th Amendment, another Amendment should eliminate the false +2 electoral votes given to every state.

In exchange for this, the liberals should compromise, and offer an amendment that addresses conservative concerns about Federalism. I would advise a Constitutional provision that clarifies the meaning of the Commerce Clause and overturns Wickard v. Filburn along with a host of Federal programs which should be state and local: especially including criminal statutes but also including economic programs which are more properly intrastate.






Ha ha. I'm just kidding. Liberal/Conservative compromise? In this country? :redface:

Don't make me dig up my "compromise is a dirty word" post. I despise compromise.

Mike

Then it's a good idea to stay away from politics. Those that "despise compromise" would be most happy on a battlefield. :eusa_shhh:
 
See what happens when you let the Department of Education sever our ties with our Founding?

We're a nation of morons with no connection to our history
 
Liberals are going to favor scrapping the Electoral College while Conservatives are going to favor keeping it. This goes beyond the understandable preference of conservatives for the Constitution as written and the Liberal willingness to change customs with the seasons.

If you look at a county-by-county map of the 2008 Presidential election you'll see why. There's a lot of overflow for liberal votes in urban areas but very efficient wins for conservatives in rural areas.

Not being either liberal or conservative, I have to go with the liberals on this one. The electoral college inhibits direct democracy at a high cost: one person, one vote. The original intent was to preserve Federalist designs and respect the sovereignty of states. But there are better ways to do that. Just as America went to direct elections of Senators with the 17th Amendment, another Amendment should eliminate the false +2 electoral votes given to every state.

In exchange for this, the liberals should compromise, and offer an amendment that addresses conservative concerns about Federalism. I would advise a Constitutional provision that clarifies the meaning of the Commerce Clause and overturns Wickard v. Filburn along with a host of Federal programs which should be state and local: especially including criminal statutes but also including economic programs which are more properly intrastate.






Ha ha. I'm just kidding. Liberal/Conservative compromise? In this country? :redface:

Again... for the slow kids at the back of the class. We are not a fucking democracy. We never have been a democracy, we are not currently a democracy, and - God willing, we never will be a democracy.

This is a Republic. Governed by the rule of law, not majority rule.
 
Most people in this thread act like their vote really counts anymore. None of you, including me, have enough money for your vote to count.
At least I have the balls to admit it.
It's a moot point!
 
Soggy in NOLA said:
Oh sure... let's let NYC, L.A. & Chicago decide who we get as President.

^
Wants to marginalize the urban vote.

I remember I was defending the idea that DC might get a representative in Congress. You know, no taxation without representation, etc. I was told, "Its their fault they live there."

*shakes head*
 
Liberals are going to favor scrapping the Electoral College while Conservatives are going to favor keeping it. This goes beyond the understandable preference of conservatives for the Constitution as written and the Liberal willingness to change customs with the seasons.

If you look at a county-by-county map of the 2008 Presidential election you'll see why. There's a lot of overflow for liberal votes in urban areas but very efficient wins for conservatives in rural areas.

Not being either liberal or conservative, I have to go with the liberals on this one. The electoral college inhibits direct democracy at a high cost: one person, one vote. The original intent was to preserve Federalist designs and respect the sovereignty of states. But there are better ways to do that. Just as America went to direct elections of Senators with the 17th Amendment, another Amendment should eliminate the false +2 electoral votes given to every state.

In exchange for this, the liberals should compromise, and offer an amendment that addresses conservative concerns about Federalism. I would advise a Constitutional provision that clarifies the meaning of the Commerce Clause and overturns Wickard v. Filburn along with a host of Federal programs which should be state and local: especially including criminal statutes but also including economic programs which are more properly intrastate.






Ha ha. I'm just kidding. Liberal/Conservative compromise? In this country? :redface:

Don't make me dig up my "compromise is a dirty word" post. I despise compromise.

Mike

Then it's a good idea to stay away from politics. Those that "despise compromise" would be most happy on a battlefield. :eusa_shhh:

An asinine assertion that I want to be on the battlefield. I just don't want my guy hugging my philosophical enemy. It is possible to not compromise without getting into a battle. What is the worst that happens? Gridlock? PLEASE? CAN I HAVE SOME?

We have the federal government in charge of our militias, inspecting our food and micromanaging our lives... why? So that we can compromise. I would rather there never be another federal law written as long as I live than have some watered down compromise that gives my liberty to a body that is now unworthy to govern a school of fish, much less a nation. We've made a mockery of the republican system and the federal ideals this country was founded on. Almost all of Freeman's "promises" as he sold the Constitution have become false and invalid. Of course we won't look at that side of the story when we evaluate compromise... instead we will take my statement and turn me into some sort of violent hack. I'm all for Burr style civility, if it comes to that... but not outright battle. Hell, its not hard to make the case that most of our representatives are nothing more than glorified thugs anyways.

Mike
 

Forum List

Back
Top