Electoral College

[jillian]

Again... which doesn't mean it should CONTINUE to be that way.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Again... which doesn't mean it should CONTINUE to be that way.

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.

 

[Gunny]

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.

Again, my comments have NOTHING to do with taking away states rights. Since the vote of the individual appears to be inconsequential in your argument, I don't see that I have any other point to make.

My initial comment was in reference to the state level, not the Federal level. Again, refer back to the sentence preceeding this one.

Bottom line is, while you have your prediction of what you think might occur as a result of using the popular vote, we can SEE the result of the electoral college voting its own interest first.

We have a government that is out of control and elected officials that do not represent the viewpoints of the people they are supposed to represent. We have a Federal government assuming more and more control and while eroding the very states rights you champion.

As I stated previously, why bother with the facade? The selling point "your vote counts?" Your vote counts if its in the electoral college's interest.

Yeah, score one for being a Republic and not a democracy.

Wherever the happy medium is between a republic and a democracy, we've lost sight of it.

 

[jillian]

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.

If, as you profess, the PEOPLE are the State, then seems that giving more power to the INDIVIDUAL'S vote empowers the state.

Otherwise, this "State" you're talking about is a separate entity which bears no relationship to us anyway. So why bother protecting "ITS" rights.

In any event, seems your argument is pretty circuitous and essentially breaks down to "The EC should continue to exist because it exists and someone told me it would protect States' Rights".

 

[Gunny]

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.

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.

 

[Gunny]

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.

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?

 

[Bern80]

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?

And how would that be different if there were no states and thus no electoral college? Of course certain areas are going to vote certain ways.

 

[Bern80]

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.

Unfortunately no you can't. if you take away the electoral college, the system that is designed to give all states proportionate representation, then why have states? What needs to be 'fixed' about the electoral college? If you remove the EC, then you have to do something about the fact that the small states now have no say in who gets elected. Your one vote equals one vote argument is BS because the majority of votes lie within limited geographic areas of the country and again any candidate that has a brain is gonna campaign where the most votes are and not where there are very few.

Perhaps you could see a bit more clearly if you quit looking at the topic through a coffee stir?

I don't drink coffee.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I believe that the electoral college isn't needed in today's society. How do you feel?

The US a Federal Republic, not a democracy.

The states, not the people, elect the President, because the President is not The People's representative on the Federal Gvmnt -- which is why the people do not have a right to vote or President.

There's no reason to change that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Land doesn't vote -- states do.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Then you need to take that issue up with your state legislature, and lobby it to change the election law to award electors proportionally.

Of course, they might just decide to not put it to a vote at all - leaving you with no recourse other than trying to throw the legislature out of office.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If, as you profess, the PEOPLE are the State, then seems that giving more power to the INDIVIDUAL'S vote empowers the state.

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Proportional allocation of Electors will result in Congress selecting our President and Vice President. You have of course read HOW that works right?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxii.html

If an actual majority of electors does not vote for who shall be President then the House of Representatives determines who is President and the Senate determines who is Vice President. Further there are only 50 votes in the house ( each state has to determine collectively who to vote for) and if a 2/3 majority do not vote in a President in time, then the Senates Vice President shall become President.

This means at least 268 or 269 electors MUST chose the same person as President or the selection goes to Congress. Congress did select one of our Presidents, I believe it was John Quincy Adams in 1820 or 1824.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

maybe, but prolly not.
The last couple elections, as close as they were, would have had the same result.

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.

 

[Taomon]

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?

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.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

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.

 

[Bern80]

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.

Stating what you believe is irrelevant. The result of what you propose would be that states would 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 don't assume any position of you other than what you have stated. What I'm saying is you have made an argument that the EC needs to be done away with. The purpose of the EC is to give all states a say. And as RGS noted the operative word is 'states'. Your vote does count.... at the state level. Saying there should not be an EC is clearly an argument against having a republic form of government, which is why I ask if you want to maintain that the EC should be gone, but you still believe in states rights, how do you propose with an EC gone that you make the vote fair to all the states?

the annoying think about your argument is that it's a solution that a leftist would come up with and you aren't a leftist. Saying there are problems with the EC and thus should be done away with is equivalent to something like some guns are used illegally so all guns should be banned or some innocent people have died from the death penalty so it should be thrown out.

 

[DeadCanDance]

so much buffonery, on one thread.

The EC doesn't "force" candidates to campaign in small states.

Because of the EC, candidates pretty much only campaign in swing states. Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan.

They're not campaiging in either Vermont, New York, Montana, or California for the most part. There's nothing about the EC that makes them campaign in small states.

Small states already have disproportionate representation at the federal level. Wyoming has as many senators as California. And, in terms of choosing presidential candidates in the primaries, small states already have a disproportionate influence: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina.

 

[CharlestonChad]

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?

Wyoming has less representation than New York even with the electoral college.