The Electorial College

[The T]

Back when the EC was installed as a mechanism, only landowners could vote. So it had nothing to do with the "masses". Because the "masses" couldn't vote.

Our forefathers were smart enough to realise--"back in the day" that people who lived in populated areas--versus the country--were able to influence government--thereby--politicians could ignore the countryside by simply campaigning in large populace areas.

They instituted the electoral college in order to give "fair representation to all".

If we didn't have it today--the middle section of this country would simply be a fly-over for Presidential candidates & they would only campaign in major metropolitian areas.

The electoral college stops them cold from doing this.

It does? The electoral College "stops them cold" from only campaigning in Major Metropolitian Areas?

REALLY??

Since when?

NO The INTENT of the post was that it STOPS the politicians COLD from OVERRIDING the Interests of Lower POPULATED areas.

But YOU KNEW THIS...Didn't you?

 

[The T]

[

YOU are too fuckin' entrenched in a PURE Democracy, where anarchy rules the day. That is to say MOB RULE. That isn't how this REPUBLIC operates by DESIGN.

You wanna change it? then an AMENDMENT is in order by Constitutional Covention. Good luck with that. It ain't gonna happen any time soon.

Of course you're NOT gonna READ that bit of history. I find it of NO particuliar surprise. Read it and WEEP...Stronger States (More Populus) Cannot Override Smaller ones by sheer Numbers, precisely because WE are NOT a Democracy...*BY DESIGN*.

The Founders were SMARTER than YOU.

Get used to it.

But you are in a mob rule situation. At the moment the Dems are the mob...and they rule....shrug...

They ARE? Is that WHY the MOB has Decried the Numbers LARGER than them this past Summer with the PROTESTS?

Are you SURE that you wish this to be you FINAL answer? I'll BET NOT. That's what REPRESENTATION is all about.

Just because a certain PARTY is in a MAJORITY does NOT MEAN that they can DO what they LIKE.
(And EXPECT to get away with it with NO DISSENT)...

Learn IT, Live IT, KNOW it.

 

[oreo]

Our forefathers were smart enough to realise--"back in the day" that people who lived in populated areas--versus the country--were able to influence government--thereby--politicians could ignore the countryside by simply campaigning in large populace areas.

They instituted the electoral college in order to give "fair representation to all".

If we didn't have it today--the middle section of this country would simply be a fly-over for Presidential candidates & they would only campaign in major metropolitian areas.

The electoral college stops them cold from doing this.

It does? The electoral College "stops them cold" from only campaigning in Major Metropolitian Areas?

REALLY??

Since when?

NO The INTENT of the post was that it STOPS the politicians COLD from OVERRIDING the Interests of Lower POPULATED areas.

But YOU KNEW THIS...Didn't you?

DITTO The Heartland of this country "cannot be ignored" by Presidential candidates--who would prefer to campaign in only major metropolitan communities.

The Heartland of this country feeds this country. It is typically unpopulated & supplies us with beef, corn, wheat, pork, milk, eggs, fruit, vegtables, etc. etc. Without them, this country & other countries would die of starvation.

They deserve equal representation--regardless of their minority in the population--henceforth the electoral college exists & will continue to exist until some idiot politician decides we need to outsource food--

 

[Dr Grump]

Yes it does... for the small states populations do not get lost in the masses... each state can show what they stood for and who they voted for.... it prevents the small states from being silenced by the urban masses

I understand the concept and you have a good point. But I guess what I'm trying to say, is in the wash up, when all is said and done, although they have had their say, what good has it done them?

What bad has it done? Can you answer that?

Nothing...just seems a convoluted way of voting IMO. At the end of the day it is a popularity contest at the state level.

I've always thought a state should be able to split the vote via the percentage a candidate gets...

 

[Dr Grump]

DITTO The Heartland of this country "cannot be ignored" by Presidential candidates--who would prefer to campaign in only major metropolitan communities.

The Heartland of this country feeds this country. It is typically unpopulated & supplies us with beef, corn, wheat, pork, milk, eggs, fruit, vegtables, etc. etc. Without them, this country & other countries would die of starvation.

They deserve equal representation--regardless of their minority in the population--henceforth the electoral college exists & will continue to exist until some idiot politician decides we need to outsource food--

You could easily win 10-15 of the biggest states and tell the other 35 - smaller populated ones - to go to hell....

 

[The T]

It does? The electoral College "stops them cold" from only campaigning in Major Metropolitian Areas?

REALLY??

Since when?

NO The INTENT of the post was that it STOPS the politicians COLD from OVERRIDING the Interests of Lower POPULATED areas.

But YOU KNEW THIS...Didn't you?

DITTO The Heartland of this country "cannot be ignored" by Presidential candidates--who would prefer to campaign in only major metropolitan communities.

The Heartland of this country feeds this country. It is typically unpopulated & supplies us with beef, corn, wheat, pork, milk, eggs, fruit, vegtables, etc. etc. Without them, this country & other countries would die of starvation.

They deserve equal representation--regardless of their minority in the population--henceforth the electoral college exists & will continue to exist until some idiot politician decides we need to outsource food--

Many Partisans think that just BECAUSE they're in the MAJORITY, that they can foist anything they like, and they expect NO DISSENT...and when the Dissent comes...they demean it...try to relegate it to "kooksville" as we witnessed this past summer with many prominent members of Congress calling the dissenters NAZIS and other things...

That isn't how we work. PARTY or not...when the people say NO in numbers they mean NO. No Party is allowed just to ramrod what they like no matter what in this Republic. And it's High time the partisans on this board understand this.

I know this is OT for the EC...But it had to be said...because the EC will kick in eventually that reflects what I just said. The EC is a mechanism that protects the People rather than a PARTY, and their Interests.

 

[oreo]

NO The INTENT of the post was that it STOPS the politicians COLD from OVERRIDING the Interests of Lower POPULATED areas.

But YOU KNEW THIS...Didn't you?

DITTO The Heartland of this country "cannot be ignored" by Presidential candidates--who would prefer to campaign in only major metropolitan communities.

The Heartland of this country feeds this country. It is typically unpopulated & supplies us with beef, corn, wheat, pork, milk, eggs, fruit, vegtables, etc. etc. Without them, this country & other countries would die of starvation.

They deserve equal representation--regardless of their minority in the population--henceforth the electoral college exists & will continue to exist until some idiot politician decides we need to outsource food--

Many Partisans think that just BECAUSE they're in the MAJORITY, that they can foist anything they like, and they expect NO DISSENT...and when the Dissent comes...they demean it...try to relegate it to "kooksville" as we witnessed this past summer with many prominent members of Congress calling the dissenters NAZIS and other things...

That isn't how we work. PARTY or not...when the people say NO in numbers they mean NO. No Party is allowed just to ramrod what they like no matter what in this Republic. And it's High time the partisans on this board understand this.

I know this is OT for the EC...But it had to be said...because the EC will kick in eventually that reflects what I just said. The EC is a mechanism that protects the People rather than a PARTY, and their Interests.

Again--our forefathers saw this coming when they instituted the electoral college. It has nothing to do with majority rules-but a fairness to all--including under populated areas that are critical to this countries survival.

The electoral college simply represents fair representation. What's important to someone living in New York City--who has millions in support--may not be important to farmers & others who live in unpopulated areas--who feed & support New York City.

 

[QUENTIN]

I know this is OT for the EC...But it had to be said...because the EC will kick in eventually that reflects what I just said. The EC is a mechanism that protects the People rather than a PARTY, and their Interests.

How?

It seems very much OT. How does the Electoral College have an impact on whether people dissent from the majority in power? How does it prevent a party from ramrodding any agenda any more than a simple popular vote would?

Wyoming still has 3 electoral votes to California's 55, they don't have equal weight, it's still population and district based but with an added middleman.

In the current system, if 10 million members of the dissenting party live in California, their votes mean nothing, i.e. they're not able to meaningfully voice their dissent. Their hopes to contribute to the loss of the majority party they oppose are disregarded and futile.

Whereas if you were to give them a vote and make it matter, they could add to a national total of dissenters that represented every person in the country opposed to the party in power. That wouldn't take away any votes in Wyoming in the process either.

Seems to me their interests are not more protected but in fact less by arbitrarily deciding based on majorities within states getting the full force of every citizen of the state's vote with the rest shut out, rather than letting each vote count and going with the majority of the nation as a whole.

 

[DiamondDave]

Yes it does... for the small states populations do not get lost in the masses... each state can show what they stood for and who they voted for.... it prevents the small states from being silenced by the urban masses

I understand the concept and you have a good point. But I guess what I'm trying to say, is in the wash up, when all is said and done, although they have had their say, what good has it done them?

In the long run, what good does your individual vote do YOU?? Nothing... It comes down to the states, especially the small ones, not losing a voice... when a populace feels they have lost their voice, bad things can start to happen

Hell... I am even down for returning to having the branches of congress elected differently.... but I don't think we're going to see an amendment to that happen either

 

[Immanuel]

You just bend over and take it.

I'm gonna resist.

And the rest of us will resist the tyranny of direct democracy and stick to a constitutional republic with checks and balances

We'll await your big power play to amend the constitution to make the US a direct democracy... but we won't be holding our breath

The "tyranny of Direct Democracy?"

Lemme ask you: what is the worst that could happen?

We elect someone completely unqualified?

Oh yeah, the electoral college REALLY does a great job with that****sarcasm****

No, the electoral college is only an anachronism that the stupid and the immature that cannot bear to accept responsibility maintain.

What is the worst thing that could happen?

How about electing a man who is beholden to the City of New York and the crime bosses who reign there and who doesn't care about the rest of the country?

As far as I am concerned, the important part of the EC is that it keeps every state involved in the process in a proportional manner. South Dakota does not control the same power that New York or California control, but in a block the midwest at least cannot be ignored simply because so many people live in New York and California.

A Presidential candidate could completely ignore the needs of farming communities who are such a small part of our society if it were a strict Democracy, because they would only need to convince the big cities to vote for them in order to win. Pretty soon we'd have the farming communities enslaved by the cities. It could even get so bad that farmers would have quotas of produce to send at no charge to the cities on a daily basis.

As for online voting, there are other problems with that, but even if we could work out those problems, and we can, online voting would not have to be the end of the EC.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Back when the EC was installed as a mechanism, only landowners could vote. So it had nothing to do with the "masses". Because the "masses" couldn't vote.

Our forefathers were smart enough to realise--"back in the day" that people who lived in populated areas--versus the country--were able to influence government--thereby--politicians could ignore the countryside by simply campaigning in large populace areas.

They instituted the electoral college in order to give "fair representation to all".

If we didn't have it today--the middle section of this country would simply be a fly-over for Presidential candidates & they would only campaign in major metropolitian areas.

The electoral college stops them cold from doing this.

It does? The electoral College "stops them cold" from only campaigning in Major Metropolitian Areas?

REALLY??

Since when?

Um, why do you think the Iowa Caucus' are so important?

If it were a strict Democracy, you would never see a Presidential Candidate outside of New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles or San Francisco. Hell, from the time the campaign began they would not even go to Washington DC, to vote on bills... hm, maybe you have a point!

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

DITTO The Heartland of this country "cannot be ignored" by Presidential candidates--who would prefer to campaign in only major metropolitan communities.

The Heartland of this country feeds this country. It is typically unpopulated & supplies us with beef, corn, wheat, pork, milk, eggs, fruit, vegtables, etc. etc. Without them, this country & other countries would die of starvation.

They deserve equal representation--regardless of their minority in the population--henceforth the electoral college exists & will continue to exist until some idiot politician decides we need to outsource food--

You could easily win 10-15 of the biggest states and tell the other 35 - smaller populated ones - to go to hell....

True, but if you lose 7 of those 15 to your opponent who is also trying to win those 15, you might just need 30 of those 35 to win the election.

Immie

 

[jillian]

And the rest of us will resist the tyranny of direct democracy and stick to a constitutional republic with checks and balances

We'll await your big power play to amend the constitution to make the US a direct democracy... but we won't be holding our breath

The "tyranny of Direct Democracy?"

Lemme ask you: what is the worst that could happen?

We elect someone completely unqualified?

Oh yeah, the electoral college REALLY does a great job with that****sarcasm****

No, the electoral college is only an anachronism that the stupid and the immature that cannot bear to accept responsibility maintain.

What is the worst thing that could happen?

How about electing a man who is beholden to the City of New York and the crime bosses who reign there and who doesn't care about the rest of the country?

As far as I am concerned, the important part of the EC is that it keeps every state involved in the process in a proportional manner. South Dakota does not control the same power that New York or California control, but in a block the midwest at least cannot be ignored simply because so many people live in New York and California.

A Presidential candidate could completely ignore the needs of farming communities who are such a small part of our society if it were a strict Democracy, because they would only need to convince the big cities to vote for them in order to win. Pretty soon we'd have the farming communities enslaved by the cities. It could even get so bad that farmers would have quotas of produce to send at no charge to the cities on a daily basis.

As for online voting, there are other problems with that, but even if we could work out those problems, and we can, online voting would not have to be the end of the EC.

Immie

what crime bosses who reign here, immie? I think you've been watching too many old movies.

 

[jillian]

I have to laugh that the same people who are always ranting about "we the people" are the ones who love the EC because it makes their votes worth more than mine.

yep... love that hypocrisy.

 

[Samson]

Our forefathers were smart enough to realise--"back in the day" that people who lived in populated areas--versus the country--were able to influence government--thereby--politicians could ignore the countryside by simply campaigning in large populace areas.

They instituted the electoral college in order to give "fair representation to all".

If we didn't have it today--the middle section of this country would simply be a fly-over for Presidential candidates & they would only campaign in major metropolitian areas.

The electoral college stops them cold from doing this.

It does? The electoral College "stops them cold" from only campaigning in Major Metropolitian Areas?

REALLY??

Since when?

Um, why do you think the Iowa Caucus' are so important?
Immie

Important?

Iowa Caucus' aren't important to anyone outside the Media and the Political parties that have made the election of our leadership something akin to a traveling circus.

 

[Immanuel]

The "tyranny of Direct Democracy?"

Lemme ask you: what is the worst that could happen?

We elect someone completely unqualified?

Oh yeah, the electoral college REALLY does a great job with that****sarcasm****

No, the electoral college is only an anachronism that the stupid and the immature that cannot bear to accept responsibility maintain.

What is the worst thing that could happen?

How about electing a man who is beholden to the City of New York and the crime bosses who reign there and who doesn't care about the rest of the country?

As far as I am concerned, the important part of the EC is that it keeps every state involved in the process in a proportional manner. South Dakota does not control the same power that New York or California control, but in a block the midwest at least cannot be ignored simply because so many people live in New York and California.

A Presidential candidate could completely ignore the needs of farming communities who are such a small part of our society if it were a strict Democracy, because they would only need to convince the big cities to vote for them in order to win. Pretty soon we'd have the farming communities enslaved by the cities. It could even get so bad that farmers would have quotas of produce to send at no charge to the cities on a daily basis.

As for online voting, there are other problems with that, but even if we could work out those problems, and we can, online voting would not have to be the end of the EC.

Immie

what crime bosses who reign here, immie? I think you've been watching too many old movies.

Well, anywhere humans come together, there is going to be corruption and New York is no different.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

It does? The electoral College "stops them cold" from only campaigning in Major Metropolitian Areas?

REALLY??

Since when?

Um, why do you think the Iowa Caucus' are so important?
Immie

Important?

Iowa Caucus' aren't important to anyone outside the Media and the Political parties that have made the election of our leadership something akin to a traveling circus.

Why are to political parties concerned about Iowa and the rest of the midwest?

Because they know that that block of humanity is something that CAN NOT be ignored under our system of government as it could be if Jillian's people we the ONLY ones that mattered.

Jillian,

Where I think you and I disagree is that you seem to think that people are going to vote individually. They are not. They will vote in a block. People in New York are going to vote for candidates that promise policies that better the lives of New Yorkers not what is best for the rest of the country. So, if a candidate promises high taxes on agricultural property that will be redistributed to the inner cities to provide for more basketball courts, New Yorkers are going to vote for that candidate and the farmers of this country are going to suffer the consequences.

The EC may not be perfect, but IMHO, it is better than simple majority rule... at least for the people who are not part of the majority and none of us can claim to be a part of every majority.

Immie

 

[DiamondDave]

I have to laugh that the same people who are always ranting about "we the people" are the ones who love the EC because it makes their votes worth more than mine.

yep... love that hypocrisy.

Your illusion again, jill... my vote in a smaller state is worth no more than yours.... and fortunately, my vote in a smaller state is not drowned out by yours either

If I move to Utah, and the voters of Utah think the polar opposite of the rest of the country, in the EC that is noted for history... in a direct popular vote, it is not...

And please remember this also fit in line with the much forgotten fact that the federal government was created by the states and that we are a republic of states... the states have meaning.. the states should have their voices heard in terms of the choosing of the executive over the republic

 

[Freedomlover]

It is obvious that most responses to this thread are written by individuals that have little or no knowledge of the history of this country. If you did you would know the following about the Electoral College.

When discussing the election of the president during the writing of the Constitution the EC was a compromise between the large states and the smaller states. The smaller states feared they would have very little impact on the election of the president simply because their populations were not as great as the big states. In a popular, direct vote for the president the small states thought they would hardly ever have much impact on who becomes president. Therefore, in order to gain ratification of the Constitution the EC was devised to give smaller states a bigger voice in the electoral process. This meant that each state would have two votes representing their state plus the number of representatives they have in the House.

This compromise brought the small states into the fold (Delaware was first to ratify) and eased the path to full ratification by the thirteen states. The reasons for the EC are as valid today as they were in the beginning. Remember that it was the states that created the federal government and each elect their representatives to the national government. There is no such thing as a "federal election". It can not be found in the Constitution anywhere exept as it relates to voting rights of minorities. In light of this I suggest you read a little bit before you post such threads as this.

 

[Ame®icano]

Jill.. we have 3 branches of government chosen in 3 different ways, purposely.... we have a branch elected by direct vote, and that is the legislative... it al goes with the checks and balances

the EC has less to do with checks and balances and more to do with landed gentry having greater power.

and just because something worked...doesn't mean it shouldn't ever be re-evaluated.

Wrong jill... it is not about 'land voting' as the land, being absent of consciousness, cannot vote... it is not about those with more land getting 'more' of a vote.... it is indeed about checks and balances with differing ways for each branch being chosen, and preventing the smaller voices/states from being silenced

True.

Number of States won by:

Obama: 19 McCain: 29​

Square miles of land won by:

Obama: 580,000 McCain: 2,427,000​

Population of counties won by:

Obama: 127 million McCain: 143 million​