Electoral College

[jreeves]

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?

 

[Gunny]

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?

We need to dump the electoral college as well as caucusing. Both are ways to disenfranchise the popular vote.

 

[jillian]

We need to dump the electoral college as well as caucusing. Both are ways to disenfranchise the popular vote.

Gotta agree with you. Remnants of a time where aristocrats tried to protect themselves from the common folk.

 

[pegwinn]

We need to keep the electoral college. The popular vote for President is the first step to mob rule.

 

[jreeves]

We need to keep the electoral college. The popular vote for President is the first step to mob rule.

Why do you feel that way?

 

[Gunny]

We need to keep the electoral college. The popular vote for President is the first step to mob rule.

And the electoral college's ability to go against the popular vote disenfranchises voters. If that's the case, what's the point to even HAVING the poular vote? Just line up the eltist powerbrokers and let them choose and be done with it and do away with the facade that we have any say in the matter.

 

[jillian]

And the electoral college's ability to go against the popular vote disenfranchises voters. If that's the case, what's the point to even HAVING the poular vote? Just line up the eltist powerbrokers and let them choose and be done with it and do away with the facade that we have any say in the matter.

That... and land shouldn't vote... people should.

 

[Bern80]

We need to dump the electoral college as well as caucusing. Both are ways to disenfranchise the popular vote.

Wow Gunny. I pegged you as a little smarter than that. Did you take civics in high school? Did you miss the part about the fact that we aren't a true democracy which is why we dont' have a popular vote take all system. We are a Republic of states. If that's the route you want to go though I better see a few posts in here from you about how we shoudl abolish the concept of states and just have a federal government. The reason we have an electoral college is the same reason every state has two senators. For the purpose of makeing sure the small states have a say. If there were no electoral college you could win the Presidency by focusing on just three urban areas. Where this twisted notion that the electoral college is unfair as oppossed to the other way around is beyond me.

It is rather amusing though that it is that very type of system -the same type of system they complained about in 2000 - that has put the democratic party in such a bind.

 

[jreeves]

Wow Gunny. I pegged you as a little smarter than that. Did you take civics in high school? Did you miss the part about the fact that we aren't a true democracy which is why we dont' have a popular vote take all system. We are a Republic of states. If that's the route you want to go though I better see a few posts in here from you about how we shoudl abolish the concept of states and just have a federal government. The reason we have an electoral college is the same reason every state has two senators. For the purpose of makeing sure the small states have a say. If there were no electoral college you could win the Presidency by focusing on just three urban areas. Where this twisted notion that the electoral college is unfair as oppossed to the other way around.

It is rather amusing though that it is that very type of system -the same type of system they complained about in 2000 - that has put the democratic party in such a bind.

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?

 

[pegwinn]

Originally Posted by pegwinn
We need to keep the electoral college. The popular vote for President is the first step to mob rule.

And the electoral college's ability to go against the popular vote disenfranchises voters. If that's the case, what's the point to even HAVING the poular vote? Just line up the eltist powerbrokers and let them choose and be done with it and do away with the facade that we have any say in the matter.

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.

 

[Gunny]

Wow Gunny. I pegged you as a little smarter than that. Did you take civics in high school? Did you miss the part about the fact that we aren't a true democracy which is why we dont' have a popular vote take all system. We are a Republic of states. If that's the route you want to go though I better see a few posts in here from you about how we shoudl abolish the concept of states and just have a federal government. The reason we have an electoral college is the same reason every state has two senators. For the purpose of makeing sure the small states have a say. If there were no electoral college you could win the Presidency by focusing on just three urban areas. Where this twisted notion that the electoral college is unfair as oppossed to the other way around.

It is rather amusing though that it is that very type of system -the same type of system they complained about in 2000 - that has put the democratic party in such a bind.

I guess I pegged you for being a little smarter than to presume my level of education in US government equates to my opinion of the electoral college and caucuses.

Basically, you don't have a Constitutional Right to vote, period. So you want to start at THAT point reeducating me, or what?

My complaint is the electoral college should represent the people in each state they represent. So much for your Federalization of the US theory.

Since the popular vote in actuality represents each and every citizen in the US, your theory that focussing on just three urban areas doesn't wash. Those 3 urban ares do not negate everyone else's vote in a 1 for 1 election.

Candidate A gets X total votes and Candidate B gets X total votes.

Without people who don't have jobs staying up all night and caucusing to steal delegates, and without the electoral college representatives deciding to vote against the majority of the people they represent.

But DO try and differentiate between my knowledge of government; which, is not being discussed and my opinion of some of the mechanizations within it next time.

 

[Bern80]

I guess I pegged you for being a little smarter than to presume my level of education in US government equates to my opinion of the electoral college and caucuses.

Basically, you don't have a Constitutional Right to vote, period. So you want to start at THAT point reeducating me, or what?

My complaint is the electoral college should represent the people in each state they represent. So much for your Federalization of the US theory.

Since the popular vote in actuality represents each and every citizen in the US, your theory that focussing on just three urban areas doesn't wash. Those 3 urban ares do not negate everyone else's vote in a 1 for 1 election.

Candidate A gets X total votes and Candidate B gets X total votes.

Without people who don't have jobs staying up all night and caucusing to steal delegates, and without the electoral college representatives deciding to vote against the majority of the people they represent.

But DO try and differentiate between my knowledge of government; which, is not being discussed and my opinion of some of the mechanizations within it next time.

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.

 

[jillian]

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.

Oh right... only good ole Denny *gets* it... puleeze... maybe you're just ... listen closely... ready... wait for it... WRONG!

 

[Bern80]

Oh right... only good ole Denny *gets* it... puleeze... maybe you're just ... listen closely... ready... wait for it... WRONG!

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.

 

[jreeves]

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?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Oh right... only good ole Denny *gets* it... puleeze... maybe you're just ... listen closely... ready... wait for it... WRONG!

Bern80 *gets it*.....this was only one of the MAJOR constitutional arguments back when.....it's all about States rights. Believe it or not, per the Constitution it is the STATES via their Electors that elect the head of the Executive Branch and the Constitution does NOT limit how those Electors are chosen....altho it is done by popular vote.

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
--from Article II of the Constitution

If there was no system like the EC then cities could always dominate rural areas for example. Because no one area has enough electoral votes to elect a president it's a system that encourages a presidential candidate to select his vice president from a different area of the country. This helps to unify the country.

Minority interests are better represented by using the electoral system…..gee, I thought you libs were all for minority rights...

Without the EC we would lose our federal structure….and thus State's rights. Of course the far left is all for eliminating States rights....they want centralized Federal power from which to rule.

 

[jillian]

I do so love when SE, who gets nothing.... comments on someone else *getting it*.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And the electoral college's ability to go against the popular vote disenfranchises voters. If that's the case, what's the point to even HAVING the poular vote? Just line up the eltist powerbrokers and let them choose and be done with it and do away with the facade that we have any say in the matter.

The President has NEVER EVER been elected by popular vote. They do not go against the process when they elected the President AS PRESCRIBED.

The Electoral College ensures every STATE has a voice. No Electoral College and the only place you will see Candidates is in large Urban areas. The large cities will elect the President. And we all kow how they think.

 

[jillian]

So someone's vote in Wyoming should be worth more than my vote just to satisfy some desire to see rural areas have more of a say than their populations warrant?

And just because something has always been done, doesn't mean it should continue to be. Until women's sufferage... only men could vote...oh yeah, WHITE men.....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So someone's vote in Wyoming should be worth more than my vote just to satisfy some desire to see rural areas have more of a say than their populations warrant?

And just because something has always been done, doesn't mean it should continue to be. Until women's sufferage... only men could vote...oh yeah, WHITE men.....

The President is NOT elected by your vote. Read the Constitution. The President has NEVER been elected by popular vote, not ever.