User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:26:44 PM EDT
[#1]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:26:50 PM EDT
[#2]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:26:54 PM EDT
[#3]
no
and direct election of senators should be done away with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:27:46 PM EDT
[#4]
+1. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:28:00 PM EDT
[#5]
No. Never.
HH |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:28:38 PM EDT
[#6]
I usually agree whole heartedly with our founding fathers, hell I am related to Thomas Jefferson, but I feel unsure about the electoral college.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:29:11 PM EDT
[#7]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:32:32 PM EDT
[#8]
Yes. It's extremely outdated and no one understands what it's about.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:32:35 PM EDT
[#9]
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". |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:32:58 PM EDT
[#10]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:33:36 PM EDT
[#11]
No, it is the only way we can keep stealing elections from Democrats....at least that is the way they think.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:34:15 PM EDT
[#12]
Not unless we want the blue states on the coasts to choose what is right for all of us. No thank you.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:35:03 PM EDT
[#13]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:35:49 PM EDT
[#14]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:36:11 PM EDT
[#15]
Bingo. Founding Fathers were simply brilliant. Amazing that that much intellectual firepower was concentrated in one place at the same time. A real miracle. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:36:55 PM EDT
[#16]
Agreed 100% |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:37:08 PM EDT
[#17]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:37:14 PM EDT
[#18]
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.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:37:18 PM EDT
[#19]
It's rare we see such common, logical sense so early in a thread. Bravo limaxray 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:37:58 PM EDT
[#20]
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. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:39:54 PM EDT
[#21]
Electoral College is a good thing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:40:44 PM EDT
[#22]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:41:12 PM EDT
[#23]
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 |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:41:23 PM EDT
[#24]
Only if you are a Dummycrat.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:43:01 PM EDT
[#25]
Perfect response. LX HH |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:43:18 PM EDT
[#26]
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? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:47:41 PM EDT
[#27]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:50:26 PM EDT
[#28]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:52:06 PM EDT
[#29]
Maybe not, but under the EC, they at least pretend to.
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.
They don't, and you wildly misunderstand what is going on with the EC. Any state has the potential to be the tie-splitter.
Sure. Senator Reid hails from Nevada. Politicians want votes from wherever they can get them. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:52:16 PM EDT
[#30]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:54:38 PM EDT
[#31]
Over my dead body.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:58:06 PM EDT
[#32]
I say yes and replace it with a "one state, one vote" system. No more pandering to the urbanites.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:59:18 PM EDT
[#33]
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). |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 7:00:09 PM EDT
[#34]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 7:06:49 PM EDT
[#35]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 7:10:29 PM EDT
[#36]
Without it Gore would be prez now. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 7:40:11 PM EDT
[#37]
If we're changing something, how about going back to having senators chosen by the state legislators? Jim |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 7:49:42 PM EDT
[#38]
No way...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 7:57:37 PM EDT
[#39]
No...something about the 'tyranny of the majority'
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 11:10:34 PM EDT
[#40]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 11:32:04 PM EDT
[#41]
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> |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 11:52:08 PM EDT
[#42]
Not just no, but HELL NO!
Getting rid of the EC is a step closer to direct democracy, and I do NOT want a direct democracy. The founders got it right forming a representative republic. Definition of Democracy, from a 1928 US Army Training Manual: "A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy." The founding fathers were emphatic that they had founded a republic, and they made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy. Everyone should read and understand their basis for the EC before tinkering with something so important. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2006 12:07:41 AM EDT
[#43]
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. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2006 12:50:53 AM EDT
[#44]
You obviously do not live in the Dakotas.... 600,000 people, most of which concentrated into two cities. Two cities = "less fortunates" Less Fortunates vote for those who will, by the grace of neighbors, make them More Fortunate. With 600k, it doesn't take much to upset a "majority". Look at poor ole Daschle. THINK PEOPLE! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2006 1:01:50 AM EDT
[#45]
There are some who say that the 17th Amdmt was one of the "milestones" on the road to hell for this country....... |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2006 1:24:25 AM EDT
[#46]
The Electoral College would function better if corruption in .gov was eliminated.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2006 1:38:01 AM EDT
[#47]
They still don't |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2006 1:54:02 AM EDT
[#48]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2006 2:58:56 AM EDT
[#49]
The electoral college system was put in the constitution for a reason.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2006 3:09:11 AM EDT
[#50]
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 |
|||
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
.jpg)
