Should the electoral college be abolished?

Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 11:03 pm

Saitou wrote:

I support a model where each state is almost a seperate nation but where their common interests and needs are handled by the federal government.

We had that in my home state. It was called The Confederate States of America. Some yankees didn't approve and wiped it out.

Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 12:40 am

SvZurich wrote:

Saitou wrote:

I support a model where each state is almost a seperate nation but where their common interests and needs are handled by the federal government.

We had that in my home state. It was called The Confederate States of America. Some yankees didn't approve and wiped it out.

No! That was all about slavery!!!!11111 (just kidding)

My opinion on those events are still in flux. I want states to have the option of leaving the uni0n as a powerful bargaining tool but at the same time I don't want the country to actually fracture.

Imagine such a future. It's not impossible. Mexico retakes California and Texas. Liberals totally dominating some states and conservatives others. What if the US split into 2 countries?

Newbie Joined: Nov 28, 2006 Posts: 21 Location: USA

The US is a republic, not a democracy, and it stay that way. Abolishing the EC would remove one more barrier protecting our system from the fraud of pure democracy. The voters cannot be trusted to make policy directly, because most of them are uneducated or unfocused on politics until election time, when candidates and interest groups can sway them by slick sensational propaganda. It was a mistake to remove selection of Senators from state legislatures, because now the balance between state power and popular sufferage has been tipped too far in favor of the later. It would be a tragedy to abolish the remaining institution that gives states the power to decide the Presidency, the Electoral College.

ARTICLE 4, Section 4 (US Constitution) states: every state is guaranteed a republican form of government, meaning that the states are guaranteed representation through the Senate or at least the EC, while the people are guaranteed representation in the House and state governments.

I support the preservation of the Electoral College.

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 12:46 am

am242 wrote:

The US is a republic, not a democracy, and it stay that way. Abolishing the EC would remove one more barrier protecting our system from the fraud of pure democracy. The voters cannot be trusted to make policy directly, because most of them are uneducated or unfocused on politics until election time, when candidates and interest groups can sway them by slick sensational propaganda. It was a mistake to remove selection of Senators from state legislatures, because now the balance between state power and popular sufferage has been tipped too far in favor of the later. It would be a tragedy to abolish the remaining institution that gives states the power to decide the Presidency, the Electoral College.

ARTICLE 4, Section 4 (US Constitution) states: every state is guaranteed a republican form of government, meaning that the states are guaranteed representation through the Senate or at least the EC, while the people are guaranteed representation in the House and state governments.

I support the preservation of the Electoral College.

Yours is the usual argument for the electoral college, but I don't buy it. If your fear is that the idiot be powerful, the electoral college makes him MORE powerful than straight vote-count.

Look at the numbers for the so-called landslide of Ronald Reagan. Reagan got only 9.7% more votes than Carter. But Regan got 81.7% of the electoral college.

This election shows the real problem with the electoral college. The illusion of a landslide occurs whenever there is a slim margin of victory for 1 side in many states. Therefore, under the electoral college, the smallest number of people are actually responsible for electing the president. The other 90.3% of voters, representing a 50-50 split between Reagan and Carter, made no difference at all.

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 2:02 am

am242 wrote:

The US is a republic, not a democracy, and it stay that way. Abolishing the EC would remove one more barrier protecting our system from the fraud of pure democracy. The voters cannot be trusted to make policy directly, because most of them are uneducated or unfocused on politics until election time, when candidates and interest groups can sway them by slick sensational propaganda. It was a mistake to remove selection of Senators from state legislatures, because now the balance between state power and popular sufferage has been tipped too far in favor of the later. It would be a tragedy to abolish the remaining institution that gives states the power to decide the Presidency, the Electoral College.

ARTICLE 4, Section 4 (US Constitution) states: every state is guaranteed a republican form of government, meaning that the states are guaranteed representation through the Senate or at least the EC, while the people are guaranteed representation in the House and state governments.

I support the preservation of the Electoral College.

The republic can be maintained by the fact that representatives make public policy. Electors in the electoral college are almost entirely rubber stamps for the voters in their states as over 99% of the time they vote along with the majority/plurality in their state.So electors in reality are no longer a filtering mechanism, although they can potentially vote against the popular vote. That is, electors,who are selected on a partisan basis, long ago dropped their use of discretion.In fact in some states they are fined for violating their oath to vote for the popular vote winner. One problem I have with the electoral college is that small states have disproportional power. If state power is important should it not be allocated on a more equitable basis?

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 4:11 am

PJS wrote:

One problem I have with the electoral college is that small states have disproportional power. If state power is important should it not be allocated on a more equitable basis?

If the electoral college was altered to truly reflect state populations how would that be significantly different from a straight vote count?

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 4:41 am

Welcome am242! Very Happy

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 6:19 am

kmisho wrote:

PJS wrote:

One problem I have with the electoral college is that small states have disproportional power. If state power is important should it not be allocated on a more equitable basis?

If the electoral college was altered to truly reflect state populations how would that be significantly different from a straight vote count?

It would not be significantly different from a straight vote count. I was simply pointing out a problem with the current system. A direct popular election in my view would be the way to go as the winner nationwide would always be the majority or plurality choice. A direct popular election is a simple, easy to understand method that ,while it may weaken the federal system in the loss of state influence, on balance would better serve democratic ideals. All methods have potential flaws but on balance I prefer a direct election.

Practically speaking this is highly unlikely to occur as any such constitutional amendment would be unlikely to pass.See my previous post as to why I believe this so unlikely to change.

As an aside I believe Finland changed from an electoral type system in the 1980's to a direct vote .

Resident Joined: Jul 12, 2004 Posts: 377

am232 wrote:

It was a mistake to remove selection of Senators from state legislatures, because now the balance between state power and popular sufferage has been tipped too far in favor of the later.

I understand am232 doesn't trust common people to have much say in their governments. As awful as that may seem, some of us still dare to ask why (s)he thinks we should put more trust in a goverment under the influence of states, (whatever that could mean).

In order to understand any such explanation, I need to know what the supporters of "states' influence" mean by "states". Could it be the shapes described by state borders? In politics, I tend to think of people. I would apparently err to think that state means the citizens of the state. Balancing the influence of citizens with the influence of citizens? No one would make such an incoherent argument. Of course, the citizens of states aren't just any national citizen -- they are people grouped together according to someone's arbitrary decision that geography should matter. I explained problems with that in an earlier post.

Newbie Joined: Nov 28, 2006 Posts: 21 Location: USA

materialguy wrote:

I understand am232 doesn't trust common people to have much say in their governments. As awful as that may seem, some of us still dare to ask why (s)he thinks we should put more trust in a goverment under the influence of states, (whatever that could mean).

In order to understand any such explanation, I need to know what the supporters of "states' influence" mean by "states". Could it be the shapes described by state borders? In politics, I tend to think of people. I would apparently err to think that state means the citizens of the state. Balancing the influence of citizens with the influence of citizens? No one would make such an incoherent argument. Of course, the citizens of states aren't just any national citizen -- they are people grouped together according to someone's arbitrary decision that geography should matter.

State power is based upon the popular sufferage of its voters. The state legislatures select the electors from the D and R parties (which in most states fill 95% plus state house seats) to cast their votes for the presidential candidate who won that state's popular vote, in most cases. As for third parties, there isn't enough interest among the populace to organize them. This is the same populace who tunes into elections two or three weeks from Election Day. This is tragic, but in our system, voters can only blame themselves.

So why should state boundaries matter? States are composed of counties, and state and county boundaries tend to define court jurisdictions. Most involved voters like state and local sovereignty, allowing control of local courts, law enforcement, cities and townships, and local taxation and budgets. State constitutions vary and statutes and case law formed by legislatures and courts tend to better address local needs and interests. Special interests are in fact made up of voters, we are all somehow beholden to "special interests" no matter what the political ads try to tell us. States aren't accidents of geography, they are entities founded on property laws and jurisdictions generally decided by the people.

Why should small states have as much clout as larger states? Because they are sovereign, and differ greatly in geography, resources, pop distribution, etc. Should one town annex another town just because it has more people? Should the problems of large urban areas be dumped on less populated areas? People want local control and boundaries. That is human nature. It is in our genes. Progressivism (as much a religion of dogma as any other) has covered up this inconvenient truth.

- Am242

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:16 am

[quote="am242"][.
Why should small states have as much clout as larger states? Because they are sovereign, and differ greatly in geography, resources, pop distribution, etc. Should one town annex another town just because it has more people? Should the problems of large urban areas be dumped on less populated areas? People want local control and boundaries. That is human nature. It is in our genes. Progressivism (as much a religion of dogma as any other) has covered up this inconvenient truth.

The problem is not that small states have "the same clout" as larger staes but that the allotment of electoral votes does not match the population or voter distribution. Wyoming has three electors or one for every 165,000 people. California has 55 electors or one for every 616,000 people-using census data in each case. Why should a Wyoming voter have almost four times the "clout" of a California voter?There are numerous states where there is a substantial discrepancy in voting power. Simply compare the most populated/most electors states to the states with either 3 or 4 electors. If you divide you see the problem.

Whether or not the desire for local control is part of human nature seems off the mark. There are many policies,laws, and principles of government devised to in fact offset what may be in our "nature".

Resident Joined: Jul 12, 2004 Posts: 377

PJS wrote:

Whether or not the desire for local control is part of human nature seems off the mark. There are many policies,laws, and principles of government devised to in fact offset what may be in our "nature".

Exactly, Part of the normative analysis of government systems might concern what "offsetting" of human tendencies governments should do and how they might successfully do that.

Constitutions needn't impose things that people want and would achieve, given their great creativity. Royalists also say that human nature desires a monarch. Instead of awakening our cynicism about the advocates priviledges, we should have accepted the perpetuation of monarchy with gratitude. As they may have explained

am242 wrote:

It is in our genes. Progressivism (as much a religion of dogma as any other) has covered up this inconvenient truth.

The constitutionally imposed groupings favored by State sovereigntists would be irrelevent if the groupings mirrored only people's desire for "local control and boundaries" and didn't conspire to make local concerns national concerns. State sovereignty represents a disrespect for boundaries as relevant to the broadest balanced set of human concerns.

Local governments can best serve some human concerns. More geographically encompassing governments can better serve other human concerns. To the extent that these concerns are human, each level of government should be elected in a way that doesn't systematically disadvantage some people relative to others. People do need to pay attention to the roles appropriate to the levels of government. Making local interests national does not logically advance such an appropriate allocation of roles.
I'm tired of so many careless untruths.

am242 wrote:

Should the problems of large urban areas be dumped on less populated areas?

When has this happened? Be specific. How does state "sovereignty" better prevent such occurances than would other arrangements. Does it also prevent large rural areas from dumping on heavily populated areas?

am242 wrote:

Should one town annex another town just because it has more people?

That's another red herring. If people don't want their town annexed, they only need a majority to vote down such a proposal.

am242 wrote:

Why should small states have as much clout as larger states? Because they are sovereign, and differ greatly in geography, resources, pop distribution, etc.

If I live in a state where sheep out-number people, my vote should count five times as much as the vote of someone who lives in a large coastal state? Sorry, I don't get it.

am242 wrote:

States aren't accidents of geography, they are entities founded on property laws and jurisdictions generally decided by the people.

And that would be entirely beside the point of this discussion, even if it were true.

am242 wrote:

As for third parties, there isn't enough interest among the populace to organize them.

I only include this quote as a demonstraton of ignorance. Third parties don't prosper or fail on popular interest alone. People rationally choose to support one of the major established parties because no third party stands a chance in a winner takes all system.

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:42 am

Currently I support the electoral college system.

Let us say that we switched to a "one person, one vote" system. There would be only a handful of states (those with the highest population) that would really matter in an election.

Let us say also that candidate A is running for president and a state with a high population (California) wants something that a state that has a low population (Wyoming) also wants. Let us further state that such a wanted resource is finite and can only be given to one state or the other.

In such a case, to whom do you think candidate A will give their support? Certainly not Wyoming with it's comparatively puny voter base. Why would candidate A support them if they can't get him/her elected?

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:28 pm

Personally, I think that the electoral college is a good thing. But, I also think that the public needs to be educated in political matters, and the various government bodies need to advertise the legal processes of this country a tad more. I also think that our current form of government needs serious remodeling,and the constitution needs a new draft that clearly defines rights in a modern context, maybe with, I dunno, lay-men's English as opposed to the confusing jargon littering bills and such. Sometimes, I think that interpreting the constitution is a lot like interpreting holy text. Anyone can twist it to serve their own insane and selfish ends. That's the reason why same-sex marriage is a no-no even in some progressive states.

Graduate Thinker Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 522

Seekah wrote:

Currently I support the electoral college system.

Let us say that we switched to a "one person, one vote" system. There would be only a handful of states (those with the highest population) that would really matter in an election.

Let us say also that candidate A is running for president and a state with a high population (California) wants something that a state that has a low population (Wyoming) also wants. Let us further state that such a wanted resource is finite and can only be given to one state or the other.

In such a case, to whom do you think candidate A will give their support? Certainly not Wyoming with it's comparatively puny voter base. Why would candidate A support them if they can't get him/her elected?

Doesn't it already work like this, anyway? I think the electoral college should be abolished. People should get who they vote for.


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