Should the electoral college be abolished?

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:32 am

Should the United States Electoral College be abolished or maintained? Please make your position on the matter crystal clear so your name can be added to the list. Prepare to state why you hold that position. If you are undecided just ask questions and allow both sides of the debate to answer them.

In support of abolishing the United States Electoral College
1.
2.
3.

In support of maintaining the United States Electoral College
1. hexadecimaldivination
2.
3.

Undecided
1. elynch
2.
3.

Sources
1. http://people.howstuffworks.com/electoral-college.htm
2. http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/
3.

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:39 am

What kinds of problems would having the president decided by popular vote cause? It it inherently more prone to fraud, etc?

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:49 am

elynch wrote:

What kinds of problems would having the president decided by popular vote cause? It it inherently more prone to fraud, etc?

Are you in support of abolishing or maintaining The United States Electoral College? Are you undecided?

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:50 am

Undecided until i learn more....wrong forum for discussion?

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:52 am

elynch wrote:

Undecided until i learn more....wrong forum for discussion?

I am also undecided. I will do some research and post a few links.

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:59 am

I support maintaining the United States Electoral College. The United States Electoral College acts as a fail safe to prevent potentialy dangerouse individuals from being elected president.

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 11:03 am

Like, making sure "educated people" have some check over the mouthbreathing public? Isn't that kind of why the electoral college was created?

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 11:06 am

elynch wrote:

Like, making sure "educated people" have some check over the mouthbreathing public? Isn't that kind of why the electoral college was created?

Exactly and the general public still seems too unstable.

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 11:07 am

well, the general public elected gore over W. I mean, Gore seems nutty, so i'm not sure if the public was unstable in TRYING to elect him or not

Graduate Thinker Joined: Mar 04, 2006 Posts: 843

We are not a democracy if we use the electoral college. So we either stop lying to the rest of the world or admit to be the bastard child of a republic and a democracy

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 11:31 am

Abolish... but then again, the entire system is somewhat antiquated anyway. I’d like to see a system of democratic government that depended pretty much completely on laws/regulations laid down by popular vote and do away with “political leaders”. The current state of politics in this country is a grand embarrassment anyway.

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 11:05 pm

How about a modified one? Something similar to a Borda count system like they use for MVP and ranking in sports.

Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 6:53 am

I thought we were a constitutional republic? I don't know if the electoral college is a good or a bad thing. I know it was a bad thing in the 2000 election, but overall, I just don't know.

Master of Logic Joined: Oct 04, 2003 Posts: 9371

soydios77 wrote:

I thought we were a constitutional republic? I don't know if the electoral college is a good or a bad thing. I know it was a bad thing in the 2000 election, but overall, I just don't know.

It is not antiquated and although it benifited a incompetent person, the beauty of the constitutional republic we have is it's system of checks and balances. The electoral college is part of that. It is a protection from absolute power and that includes the voters as well. A pure democracy would be mob rule by vote. The electoral college allows for dissent just like the Supreme Court can rule against the majority. It insures that no one branch of goverment or no one party has the ability to dictate to others. It allows for autonomy for the branches and the voters so that there is no monopoly.

If you want to complain about anything it would be the lack of action before the 2000 election to fix the problem and complain about the Republicans ignoring the laws in Fla that were already in place. Certainly the system worked in favor of Bush, but it also on tuesday worked against him. Checks and balances works and tuesday proved it.

Master of Logic Joined: Oct 04, 2003 Posts: 9371

Let me add that the entire constitution has built into it a form of dissent in every branch so that no monopoly of power can be established. Voting is not a right to dictate to the ellected officials, it is ment as a guide. They too are allowed to dissent against those who voted them into office. They certianly might not get ellected next time, but it is there to allow for dissent, just like the president has veto power, just lke the Supreme Court can strike down a law the government has istablished. The electoral college is set up to allow the ellected to vote in a voluntary way.

Having a majority vote mandate would be a bad thing, not a good thing. You'd be errasing the oportunity for dissent. Dissent must exist in every branch of government, from voting, to the house and senate, presidency to the Supreme Court. Even if you vote for someone, that person once in office must be allowed to vote voluntarly and should not be forced to vote either way. Again, most of the time they do vote the way their voters ask them to, and they do because they want to keep their seat or be voted out in the next cycle. The power of the voter doesnt exist in forcing them to vote the way you want while in office, the power of the voter exists on Novemeber 7th. But, even then our system is based on everything being debateable and voluntary.

Our system including the electory college is set up to be a buffer to prevent monopolies of power and it is fair because it has always allowed for oportunity for change, even when it benifits those we dissagree with. We must look at every level of our goverment as a guide and voting should not be viewed as absolute, but a tool for those ellected as guide. Our voting was never ment in our system to be a form of absolute power over government, but a guide to appeal to our government on how we want them to behaive.

The reason it is a guide and not a mandate is because it allows dissentors partisipate and possibly create future social change as the Supreme Court has done for women and blacks and hopefully soon, gays as well. If the electoral college were not there it would be a key form of dissent stripped from our system.

This open system sometimes benifits people we dissagree with and does benifit the minority, as it did in the 00 ellection, but I wouldnt myself have it any other way. It does work because it can cut both ways.. We cant scrap the system just because it benifits the oposition sometimes.

I am glad the electoral college exists because it allows the members autonomy and that autonomy is vital to everyone from the voters, to every branch of goverment. It allows for accountablity, it allows those ellected to stick up for the small guy and most important isnures that no one party or group can dictate to everyone else.

Not liking the result of an election is not a reason to get rid of it. The system does work because it allows for change and it allows the minority to win. Voting is ment as a guide, not a dictitorial mandate and that autonomy must be allowed from the voters to those in office.

The electoral college is a brilliant odity because it serves as a reminder that we are not mob rule by vote.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore