Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:24:55 PM EDT
What say you?

Poll to come.
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 6:26:44 PM EDT
No. The Electoral College is one of only only two things that keeps us from becoming a direct democracy, which the Founding Fathers also translated as "mob rule." The other is the Senate.

Read some of the Federalist Papers for the arguments for the Electoral College.
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 6:26:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/10/2006 6:27:53 PM EDT by 1Andy2]
Why not? Almost every other vestige of State sovreignty is gone as well.

eta: Most electors are required by their state to cast their votes in accordance with the popular vote of that state anyways.
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 6:26:54 PM EDT
no
and direct election of senators should be done away with.
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 6:27:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By limaxray:
No. The Electoral College is one of only only two things that keeps us from becoming a direct democracy, which the Founding Fathers also translated as "mob rule." The other is the Senate.

Read some of the Federalist Papers for the arguments for the Electoral College.



+1.
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 6:28:00 PM EDT
No. Never.

HH
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 6:28:38 PM EDT
I usually agree whole heartedly with our founding fathers, hell I am related to Thomas Jefferson, but I feel unsure about the electoral college.
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 6:29:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bastiat:
no
and direct election of senators should be done away with.

What the fuck?
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 6:32:32 PM EDT
Yes. It's extremely outdated and no one understands what it's about.
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 6:32:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By g3shooter:

Originally Posted By bastiat:
no
and direct election of senators should be done away with.

What the fuck?


Direct election of Senators didn't begin until 1913 with the passage of the 17th amendment. Prior to that the state legislatures chose their state's Senators. The founding fathers never intended for the Senate to be a "House of Reps on steroids".
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 6:32:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/10/2006 6:35:20 PM EDT by CasualObserver]
Why not? My state, and even my district, go very reliably the same way every time by at least ten and usually closer to twenty percentage points. It doesn't matter how I vote, or even that I vote. I'd like to have an actual voice in choosing the leader of my nation.

Eliminating the Electoral College would give every American an equal voice in electing their president. Can anyone convince me otherwise?

Edit for clarity.
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 6:33:36 PM EDT
No, it is the only way we can keep stealing elections from Democrats....at least that is the way they think.
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 6:34:15 PM EDT
Not unless we want the blue states on the coasts to choose what is right for all of us. No thank you.
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 6:35:03 PM EDT
YES SOme of the Electoral types overturned vote in favor of their chosen candidate.

California went to Bush with over 50% of the vote but the electoral college gave it to Gore or Kerry Cant remember right now
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 6:35:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CasualObserver:
Eliminating the Electoral College would give an equal voice to every American. Convince me otherwise.



Presidents won't give a flipping fuck about less-populated areas if the EC is done away with. NYC, LA, SF, and other big cities will rule the Presidential elections.
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 6:36:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By hughjafj:
Not unless we want the blue states on the coasts to choose what is right for all of us. No thank you.



Bingo.

Founding Fathers were simply brilliant. Amazing that that much intellectual firepower was concentrated in one place at the same time. A real miracle.
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 6:36:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Echo_Hotel:

Originally Posted By g3shooter:

Originally Posted By bastiat:
no
and direct election of senators should be done away with.

What the fuck?


Direct election of Senators didn't begin until 1913 with the passage of the 17th amendment. Prior to that the state legislatures chose their state's Senators. The founding fathers never intended for the Senate to be a "House of Reps on steroids".



Agreed 100%
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 6:37:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NonConformist:
YES SOme of the Electoral types overturned vote in favor of their chosen candidate.

California went to Bush with over 50% of the vote but the electoral college gave it to Gore or Kerry Cant remember right now



California went to Kerry by a 3 to 2 margin in 2004. Not sure how it went in the 2000 election. I doubt it went to Bush.
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 6:37:14 PM EDT
If there were no Electoral College, politicians would only visit and campaign in large population states.
They would never set foot in Wyoming, New Mexico, Rhode Island...etc Small states would have no voice at all. It would just be the voters in the big population states that get pandered to...
And we know what party THEY belong to..
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 6:37:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

Originally Posted By limaxray:
No. The Electoral College is one of only only two things that keeps us from becoming a direct democracy, which the Founding Fathers also translated as "mob rule." The other is the Senate.

Read some of the Federalist Papers for the arguments for the Electoral College.



+1.

+2
It's rare we see such common, logical sense so early in a thread. Bravo limaxray
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 6:37:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/10/2006 6:39:37 PM EDT by bastiat]

Originally Posted By g3shooter:

Originally Posted By bastiat:
no
and direct election of senators should be done away with.

What the fuck?



Study the founding of the country much?

Hell, even study NAME of our country?

It's the United STATES of America. Meaning the US is as much a collection of States as it is a collection of people.

Senators were basically meant to represent the interest of the states in congress. That is why they were appointed by state legislators (or direct voting if the state WANTED it that way). That way the balance of power is preserved, because the senators were sent there to fight for the interest of their states and their respective powers first.

Now, with the 17th amendment, we've come closer to mob rule, where senators have an incentive to ignore the intent of the constitution and the founding fathers and pander to the mob. Usually that means spending as much money as they can to buy votes with pork and earmarks.
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 6:39:54 PM EDT
Electoral College is a good thing.
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 6:40:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CasualObserver:
Why not? My state, and even my district, go very reliably the same way every time by at least ten and usually closer to twenty percentage points. It doesn't matter how I vote, or even that I vote. I'd like to have an actual voice in choosing the leader of my nation.

Eliminating the Electoral College would give every American an equal voice in electing their president. Can anyone convince me otherwise?

Edit for clarity.



You need to spend some time studying what the Founding Fathers had in mind. The problem with a direct vote is that it quickly becomes majority rule over the minority; there is NO way for the minority to have their voice heard (see what's happening in the Maryland legislature lately if you want to see what that will look like). We'd become no better than a banana republic if that happens

The EC allows those states with smaller populations to have the same voice as those with larger ones. Yes, there are swing states, etc., but that's not the same as Wyoming having the same voice as California.

Also, we need to keep it, if for no other reason that getting rid of it is what the liberal Democrats want. As a rule, if they want something, then the direct opposite is usually the right thing to do.
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 6:41:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Tomislav:

Originally Posted By CasualObserver:
Eliminating the Electoral College would give an equal voice to every American. Convince me otherwise.



Presidents won't give a flipping fuck about less-populated areas if the EC is done away with. NYC, LA, SF, and other big cities will rule the Presidential elections.



They don't give a flipping fuck now. When was the last time a presidential candidate spent any substantial amount of time or money in a non-"swing state"? Why the hell do the people of Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio get to decide all by themselves? Do you think any dem candidate gives a rats ass about the West? He already knows he's not getting those electoral votes, why even listen to them? Same can said for a repub candidate on either coast. I'm not convinced yet, but still willing to listen.

CO
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 6:41:23 PM EDT
Only if you are a Dummycrat.
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 6:43:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By limaxray:
No. The Electoral College is one of only only two things that keeps us from becoming a direct democracy, which the Founding Fathers also translated as "mob rule." The other is the Senate.

Read some of the Federalist Papers for the arguments for the Electoral College.



Perfect response. LX

HH
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 6:43:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By deej86:
Yes. It's extremely outdated and no one understands what it's about.



It's not outdated, and if someone doesn't understand it, it's not the fault of the electoral college system.

Hell, most people don't understand how the internet works, does that mean we should get rid of it?
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 6:47:41 PM EDT
Yes.

1. The President of the U.S. is the only elected nationwide position, is it not? Should be direct popular vote that determines it.
2. The President is in the Executive Branch. Doing away with the E.C. would not cause us to suddenly become a direct democracy with no representation...the Legislative branch would still do their third of the government.
3. A little hypothetical situation: Mike Tyson runs against Michael Jackson in '08. Tyson dominates North Dakota and its 3 electoral votes. Jackson wins California by a slim 51% to 49% margin. Jackson takes EVERY FREAKING ONE of California's 50 something electoral votes. Sixteen million Californians (who voted for Tyson's losing cause) essentially had less say in determining the President of the U.S. than North Dakota's 600,000 people.

My opinion only. Not that I expect the E.C. to be abolished anytime soon.
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 6:50:26 PM EDT
Someone ran the numbers and many of the recent popular elections were so close they would have gone to Congress to decide who wins. I don't want that.
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 6:52:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CasualObserver:
They don't give a flipping fuck now.



Maybe not, but under the EC, they at least pretend to.



When was the last time a presidential candidate spent any substantial amount of time or money in a non-"swing state"?



Substantial being the key word. If the EC is done away with, most of the central states will not see a Presidential campaign visit unless their plane crashes. since it would be more productive to focus on the million and larger cities.



Why the hell do the people of Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio get to decide all by themselves?



They don't, and you wildly misunderstand what is going on with the EC. Any state has the potential to be the tie-splitter.



Do you think any dem candidate gives a rats ass about the West?



Sure. Senator Reid hails from Nevada. Politicians want votes from wherever they can get them.
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 6:52:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By leakycow:
Yes.

1. The President of the U.S. is the only elected nationwide position, is it not? Should be direct popular vote that determines it.
2. The President is in the Executive Branch. Doing away with the E.C. would not cause us to suddenly become a direct democracy with no representation...the Legislative branch would still do their third of the government.
3. A little hypothetical situation: Mike Tyson runs against Michael Jackson in '08. Tyson dominates North Dakota and its 3 electoral votes. Jackson wins California by a slim 51% to 49% margin. Jackson takes EVERY FREAKING ONE of California's 50 something electoral votes. Sixteen million Californians (who voted for Tyson's losing cause) essentially had less say in determining the President of the U.S. than North Dakota's 600,000 people.

My opinion only. Not that I expect the E.C. to be abolished anytime soon.



And the problem you are demonstrating is understanding the difference between a direct democracy (which we are NOT) and a representative republic. When you mix the two, the rights of the minority will ALWAYS lose under a direct democracy.

Yes, the President is the only nationally elected position, but we do NOT want one who is "popular." We should be asking for a President that best represents ALL the people in the nation. That means that those people in the less-populated states need to have their voices heard, not drowned out, by the more populated states. The only way to do that is with some form of weighted representation, hence the EC.

Once again, read the logic behind the Founding Fathers and it will make sense why they did what they did.
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 6:54:38 PM EDT
Over my dead body.
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 6:58:06 PM EDT
I say yes and replace it with a "one state, one vote" system. No more pandering to the urbanites.
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 6:59:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By limaxray:

And the problem you are demonstrating is understanding the difference between a direct democracy (which we are NOT) and a representative republic. When you mix the two, the rights of the minority will ALWAYS lose under a direct democracy.

Yes, the President is the only nationally elected position, but we do NOT want one who is "popular." We should be asking for a President that best represents ALL the people in the nation. That means that those people in the less-populated states need to have their voices heard, not drowned out, by the more populated states. The only way to do that is with some form of weighted representation, hence the EC.

Once again, read the logic behind the Founding Fathers and it will make sense why they did what they did.



I can appreciate that. Really, I can. I guess I just see this in a "tough shit you live in a tiny-ass state" kind of way. The E.C. is like welfare for politics...giving entitlements to those that don't deserve them. (That was a tongue-in-cheek inflammatory comment, by the way).
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 7:00:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Burkey:
I say yes and replace it with a "one state, one vote" system. No more pandering to the urbanites.



This I could also get behind. Gets rid of the "you get more electoral votes for being a populous state, but not proportionally to your state's true population" system the E.C. is right now.
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 7:06:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By leakycow:
Yes.

1. The President of the U.S. is the only elected nationwide position, is it not? Should be direct popular vote that determines it.
2. The President is in the Executive Branch. Doing away with the E.C. would not cause us to suddenly become a direct democracy with no representation...the Legislative branch would still do their third of the government.
3. A little hypothetical situation: Mike Tyson runs against Michael Jackson in '08. Tyson dominates North Dakota and its 3 electoral votes. Jackson wins California by a slim 51% to 49% margin. Jackson takes EVERY FREAKING ONE of California's 50 something electoral votes. Sixteen million Californians (who voted for Tyson's losing cause) essentially had less say in determining the President of the U.S. than North Dakota's 600,000 people.

My opinion only. Not that I expect the E.C. to be abolished anytime soon.

Write in vote.
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 7:10:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By deej86:
Yes. It's extremely outdated and no one understands what it's about.



Without it Gore would be prez now.
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 7:40:11 PM EDT

If we're changing something, how about going back to having senators chosen by the state legislators?

Jim
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 7:49:42 PM EDT
No way...
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 7:57:37 PM EDT
No...something about the 'tyranny of the majority'
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 11:10:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/10/2006 11:13:14 PM EDT by Manic_Moran]
Keep the electoral college, but decide who it goes for by single transferrable vote.

Allows people to vote for who they really want (As opposed to the more common 'voting for the person with the best chance of beating the person you really want not to win') but also prevents the cities from dominating.

NTM
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 11:32:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/10/2006 11:34:25 PM EDT by KS_Physicist]
Compromise: One vote per senator goes to the overall winner of the state. Each representative's district selects one electoral vote. So, if Kansas has two senators and four representatives, then of the five electoral votes:

Two would automatically go to the overall popular winner of the state.

One would go to the winner of each house district.

So, say in Kansas, the heavily democratic Topeka-Lawrence corridor manages to swing district 2 to a democratic majority. The remainder of the state votes solidly republican. Our two senatorial electors would be republican, and three of the four representational electors would be republican. The remaining representational elector, for district 2, would be a democrat.

That might sound bad to you for Kansas, because reality usually puts all six KS electoral votes in the R column. But consider what it would do for a swing state. Heavily democratic urban areas get the D votes, but they don't outweigh the more rural R districts anymore. Someone could do the math based on county-by-county or district-by-district voting totals from the last election, but I suspect that the republicans would come out ahead of what happened with the winner-takes-all system.

I've written about this before elsewhere, and explained it better than I have here. Hopefully the gist of it is conveyed.

Jim

ETA: Apparently Maine and Nebraska do this already. <Carson>I..did..not..know..that.</Carson>
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 11:52:08 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 12:07:41 AM EDT
According to the poll numbers as I type this, 23 ARFCOM'ers need to brush up on the philosophical underpinings of our once great Republic.

Or they just need to stop trolling, and go the hell back to DU.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 12:50:53 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 1:01:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Echo_Hotel:

Originally Posted By g3shooter:

Originally Posted By bastiat:
no
and direct election of senators should be done away with.

What the fuck?


Direct election of Senators didn't begin until 1913 with the passage of the 17th amendment. Prior to that the state legislatures chose their state's Senators. The founding fathers never intended for the Senate to be a "House of Reps on steroids".


There are some who say that the 17th Amdmt was one of the "milestones" on the road to hell for this country.......
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 1:24:25 AM EDT
The Electoral College would function better if corruption in .gov was eliminated.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 1:38:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By andrew:
If there were no Electoral College, politicians would only visit and campaign in large population states.
They would never set foot in Wyoming, New Mexico, Rhode Island...etc Small states would have no voice at all. It would just be the voters in the big population states that get pandered to...
And we know what party THEY belong to..




They still don't
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 1:54:02 AM EDT
Democracy is one of the worst types of government. Changing the Constitution to allow for the popular election of US Senators was the begining of the downfall of this country.

All a candidate would have to do is campaign heavely in New York city, LA and Chicago to win.

No thanks.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 2:58:56 AM EDT
The electoral college system was put in the constitution for a reason.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 3:09:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CasualObserver:

Originally Posted By Tomislav:

Originally Posted By CasualObserver:
Eliminating the Electoral College would give an equal voice to every American. Convince me otherwise.



Presidents won't give a flipping fuck about less-populated areas if the EC is done away with. NYC, LA, SF, and other big cities will rule the Presidential elections.



They don't give a flipping fuck now. When was the last time a presidential candidate spent any substantial amount of time or money in a non-"swing state"? Why the hell do the people of Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio get to decide all by themselves? Do you think any dem candidate gives a rats ass about the West? He already knows he's not getting those electoral votes, why even listen to them? Same can said for a repub candidate on either coast. I'm not convinced yet, but still willing to listen.

CO



But "swing states" are dynamic, in some years Ohio is a key swing state, in others it isn't. Hell, in '00 the election was so close that a TON of small states emerged as swing states, including West Virginia (largely due to the efforts of the NRA). The closer the election the more important it is to campaign in every state that a candidate has a prayer of winning. Also, polling allows candidates to figure out where they need to campaign, and that wouldn't change with ditching the electoral college.

shooter
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top