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.
Transporting the votes was a primary concern. THINK of transportation available in the 1700's. I see no need for change; the anomaly of 2000 was from a statistically close election.Why the Electoral College?
by P. Andrew Sandlin
In this atmosphere, the Founders were concerned that a popular regional candidate in a populous area may be able to garner enough votes to win the election, particularly if several other candidates divided the balance of the vote. This regionally popular first candidate would not likely have the interests of the entire number of states the nation itself at heart. If a candidate needed to win only the popular vote, it would possible for him to be elected President without winning a majority of anything. He would not have been elected on the basis of any sort of consensus of the states, but simply on his popularity in a particular state or in two or three heavily populated areas.
Article 2 of the Constitution and its 12th Amendment stipulate that the President is chosen by electors, who are themselves chosen by the state, "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress." This arrangement obliges candidates to make a much wider appeal than they would if they simply were required to win the popular national election.
The electoral college is a bulwark of states rights yet, perhaps paradoxically, it also tends to foster the cohesiveness of the entire nation. It makes it difficult for more populous urban states, or states with larger populations, like New York, Florida, and California, to gain an unfair advantage over less urban and populous states like North Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana.
To eliminate the electoral college would be essentially to eliminate the role of states in presidential elections. It would comprehensively nationalize the selection and insinuate that states as such have no interest in national presidential politics. For all practical purposes, it would remove the borders between states and transform the United States of America into the united people of America.
.
The poster forgets there was no California nor Florida when the electoral college was adopted. The problem was votes spread across the eastern seaboard with no means to transport them to a central locations, AND the need for sparsely populated states to be represented.Unanamous ratification is not required. Why would you say otherwise?Along with wishing the 17th amendment was repealed, Conservatives LOVE the Electoral College.
Seems they don't want democracy ANYWHERE near the United States of America.
Mr. Dumb Fuck, Sir:
1) the vote to ratify the 17th Amendment was not unanimous hence it is a nullity
2) there are large parasitic concentration in the large cities ; so by winning in NY, California and Florida a candidate would win the election - effectively silencing rural America
Parasitic? Isn't is grand that American citizens can get away with such stupidity as calling their fellow American citizens parasitic?
And YOU called ME a Dumb Fuck! Balls the size of churchbells on you, that's certain.
Fakey's not nearly as bright as he wants to believe. But then, he's a leftist. They're a rather stupid lot.
Oh but he claims he is NOT a lefty. If he isn't, he is then an insufferable fence sitter.
They are worse than libs.
A moderate is a person frightened by their liberalism
Can I add to your most bang on the money evaluation? A moderate is someone who sits there and goes "I don't understand mustard base".
"Honey can you pass me the Kraft?" It's the person who really would accept "hope and change" all in this nice little package. Just give me easy is a moderate. Stand for nothing.
Grasp on to cliches.
At least when I was left wing I never ever tried to portray myself as a moderate. I was left and proud of it at the time.
Moderates are fools and piss me clean off. McCain is the perfect example.
And he thinks he's power tripping every time he opens his mouth. And worse yet he thinks he rules.
No real Republican is concerned with the jabberings of far horizon reactionaries like those above. They, like parrots, offer only squawks and shit for the ground.
Keep jabbering, little far righty birds (and TeaPots and Little Engines Who Couldn't).You will vote for Romney if you have any slight hope of having any influence on majority politics.
I'd put a Grey or an Amazon up against Pelosi, Reid or Idiot in Chief any day.
Don't denigrate the bird world.
Asphinctersayswhat?Keep jabbering, wannabee playahs.
Transporting the votes was a primary concern. THINK of transportation available in the 1700's. I see no need for change; the anomaly of 2000 was from a statistically close election.Why the Electoral College?
by P. Andrew Sandlin
In this atmosphere, the Founders were concerned that a popular regional candidate in a populous area may be able to garner enough votes to win the election, particularly if several other candidates divided the balance of the vote. This regionally popular first candidate would not likely have the interests of the entire number of states the nation itself at heart. If a candidate needed to win only the popular vote, it would possible for him to be elected President without winning a majority of anything. He would not have been elected on the basis of any sort of consensus of the states, but simply on his popularity in a particular state or in two or three heavily populated areas.
Article 2 of the Constitution and its 12th Amendment stipulate that the President is chosen by electors, who are themselves chosen by the state, "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress." This arrangement obliges candidates to make a much wider appeal than they would if they simply were required to win the popular national election.
The electoral college is a bulwark of states rights yet, perhaps paradoxically, it also tends to foster the cohesiveness of the entire nation. It makes it difficult for more populous urban states, or states with larger populations, like New York, Florida, and California, to gain an unfair advantage over less urban and populous states like North Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana.
To eliminate the electoral college would be essentially to eliminate the role of states in presidential elections. It would comprehensively nationalize the selection and insinuate that states as such have no interest in national presidential politics. For all practical purposes, it would remove the borders between states and transform the United States of America into the united people of America.
.
**********************************************
Q: Why does the U.S. have an Electoral College?
A: The framers of the Constitution didnt trust direct democracy.
The function of the College of Electors in choosing the president can be likened to that in the Roman Catholic Church of the College of Cardinals selecting the Pope. The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party.
Transporting the votes was a primary concern. THINK of transportation available in the 1700's. I see no need for change; the anomaly of 2000 was from a statistically close election.Why the Electoral College?
by P. Andrew Sandlin
In this atmosphere, the Founders were concerned that a popular regional candidate in a populous area may be able to garner enough votes to win the election, particularly if several other candidates divided the balance of the vote. This regionally popular first candidate would not likely have the interests of the entire number of states the nation itself at heart. If a candidate needed to win only the popular vote, it would possible for him to be elected President without winning a majority of anything. He would not have been elected on the basis of any sort of consensus of the states, but simply on his popularity in a particular state or in two or three heavily populated areas.
Article 2 of the Constitution and its 12th Amendment stipulate that the President is chosen by electors, who are themselves chosen by the state, "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress." This arrangement obliges candidates to make a much wider appeal than they would if they simply were required to win the popular national election.
The electoral college is a bulwark of states rights yet, perhaps paradoxically, it also tends to foster the cohesiveness of the entire nation. It makes it difficult for more populous urban states, or states with larger populations, like New York, Florida, and California, to gain an unfair advantage over less urban and populous states like North Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana.
To eliminate the electoral college would be essentially to eliminate the role of states in presidential elections. It would comprehensively nationalize the selection and insinuate that states as such have no interest in national presidential politics. For all practical purposes, it would remove the borders between states and transform the United States of America into the united people of America.
.
**********************************************
that's incorrect.
Q: Why does the U.S. have an Electoral College?
A: The framers of the Constitution didnt trust direct democracy.
FactCheck.org : The Reason for the Electoral College
from the federal election commission:
The function of the College of Electors in choosing the president can be likened to that in the Roman Catholic Church of the College of Cardinals selecting the Pope. The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party.
http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf
Moronic question.there are large parasitic concentration in the large cities ; so by winning in NY, California and Florida a candidate would win the election - effectively silencing rural America
So one rural vote is worth 100 city votes? Right, glad to see you live in such a 'free' country....
The Electoral College was placed to prevent unequal representations in election for President.
The fact that populous states with large democrat voting population centers cannot decide the presidential election on their own infuriates you liberal.
How just would it be if New York. California, Illinois, Washington and Oregon could decide who gets to be president all by themselves while the rest of our votes don't mean shit?
here's the underlying problem with the EC.
It was flawed from the get-go. After pooching the elections of 1796 and 1800, they immediately went back and passed the 12th Amendment, which created the system we have now.
We've had four cases were someone lost the popular vote but won the EC. In all four cases, it was a fiasco.
The GOP has this suicidal attachment of the EC because some are just afraid to admit that G.W. Bush was a huge mistake. I don't buy he was. I think he was a better president than the current one, for what that's worth.
But eventually, Texas is going to become a blue state, and after that, it becomes mathematically impossible for the GOP to win elections.
here's the underlying problem with the EC.
It was flawed from the get-go. After pooching the elections of 1796 and 1800, they immediately went back and passed the 12th Amendment, which created the system we have now.
We've had four cases were someone lost the popular vote but won the EC. In all four cases, it was a fiasco.
The GOP has this suicidal attachment of the EC because some are just afraid to admit that G.W. Bush was a huge mistake. I don't buy he was. I think he was a better president than the current one, for what that's worth.
But eventually, Texas is going to become a blue state, and after that, it becomes mathematically impossible for the GOP to win elections.
Eventually, states change sides. When Texas flips (if it does) you have no idea what will happen with the other 49 states. Some will have changes, some will be the same but all in all, no one knows what the political map will look like at that time until it comes to pass.
Actually, as I've often said, the problem with the GOP is that it's rapidly becoming a regional party. They haven't won the west coast states since 1988, and they haven't done well in the Midwest and Northeast since then, either.
We used to be able to elect Republican Governors in Illinois. True, they were often RINO's who co-opted with the Chicago Machine, but they were nominally Republicans.
Now Blago gets impeached, Quinn raises taxes, and the GOP STILL can't win the governorship in 2010 with all the win blowing in the right direction.
What the GOP needs is another re-alignment. Reagan and Nixon acheived a re-alignment back in the 1970's, and Clinton one in the 1990's.
How it gets there is the question.
Blah, blah, blah ...cretin....blah blah blah dolt....blah, blah, blah
A lot of blather and not much substance. Why am I not surprised.
"Men far smarter than I devised it. Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, Mason.."
I would say most men are smarter than you - a lot of children are, too...
The word Communist has morphed into meaning something different these days.
You're one of these 'brilliant' people who think that the original meaning of the world neocon still stands, when it clearly doesn't. I'll say two words to you - Pearle, Wolfowitz - with regard to the meaning of neocon. And if you need me to explain it to you, you're even dumber than I thought - and believe me, you are thick as two short planks...
Who's talking about taking away representation?
No real Republican is concerned with the jabberings of far horizon reactionaries like those above. They, like parrots, offer only squawks and shit for the ground.
Keep jabbering, little far righty birds (and TeaPots and Little Engines Who Couldn't).
No real Republican is concerned with the jabberings of far horizon reactionaries like those above. They, like parrots, offer only squawks and shit for the ground.
Keep jabbering, little far righty birds (and TeaPots and Little Engines Who Couldn't).
Fakey Jake, representing the Noam Chomsky faction of the GOP...Kim Jong Il was to the right of you, fakey.
