Your thoughts on the Electoral College


  

33 members have voted

  1. 1. Your thoughts on the Electoral College

    • I like the system as it is.
      5
    • The president should be elected by a straight majority vote.
      25
    • The states can keep their electoral votes just do away with the damn college.
      2
    • The what now?
      1


Recommended Posts

So the only reason it was created was because of the lack of technology? :rolleyes:

Yes, it was created because of the lack of communication between states. If something was found out about a candidate last minute there was no quick way of letting everyone know so instead the College was created.

A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.
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://jceb.co.jackson.mo.us/fun_stuff/electoral_college.htm

Like I said earlier, the purpose was for proportional representation. Perhaps technology was a factor, but the driving force in the creation of the electoral college was that less-populated states shouldn't get ramrodded.

That makes absolutely no sense. The lesser states shouldn't get special privileges. The President should be elected based on the popular vote of the entire nation, plain and simple.

That makes absolutely no sense. The lesser states shouldn't get special privileges. The President should be elected based on the popular vote of the entire nation, plain and simple.

If you actually had the patience to read through the sources that I provided above, perhaps it would've made sense.

Oh by the way, my views on this matter are irrelevant to the elaboration of the Electoral College that I provided. If politics were my way, I would let everybody have veto power in decision making since that is the ultimate mechanism for respecting the rationality and worth of very individual.

The problem with a Democracy is that when you only recognize the choices of the majority, you fail to respect the individal rationality inherent in the individuals who participate in the minority

Once again, if politics were my way.

i think less populated states should have less of a say. why give a few people a lot of power?

You could rejig the numbers for the EC so that Rhode Island residents have less influence. I wouldn't recommend a direct vote as it would diminish the power of each state. Currently if a presidential candidate wants to win a certain state then he has to campaign on issues relevant to that state. With a direct vote the presidential candidates can stick to their generic BS doubletalk.

Every needs to remember what the purpose of the federal gove't used to be, and then ultimately the President (the head of the federal gov't). Originally the Fed was not involved in the day to day lives of the citizens, but rather helped regulate the defense of all the States as well as intrastate commerce. That is just about it. So th eonly need was for the States themselves to vote for a President, not the individual citizens. Basically the Fed gov't was designed to serve the States, not each individual citizen.

Keep this in mind guys. New York still has more of a say than a state like Montana or Wyoming, more electoral votes - however the ratio isn't the same as if you took straight population numbers.

The whole point behind the system was the huge number of people living in the big northeastern states wouldn't be the only people that mattered, and now this applies to the other coast too. If you live in a small state under such a system you can just forget about your voice being heard, a canidate just has to carry a select few states with massive populations.

You look at it like the small states get special treatment, those in those small states see it as the only thing keeping them in the minds of the government.

Keep this in mind guys. New York still has more of a say than a state like Montana or Wyoming, more electoral votes - however the ratio isn't the same as if you took straight population numbers.

The whole point behind the system was the huge number of people living in the big northeastern states wouldn't be the only people that mattered, and now this applies to the other coast too. If you live in a small state under such a system you can just forget about your voice being heard, a canidate just has to carry a select few states with massive populations.

You look at it like the small states get special treatment, those in those small states see it as the only thing keeping them in the minds of the government.

So the people in these states should have there vote count more then people in more populated states? I personally believe every vote should be counted equally. I live in Massachusetts and will be voting democtrat. My vote is virtually worthless. I might as well stay home on election day. Just as any republican in heavy republican states. This "every vote counts" nonsense is starting to wear thin. Every vote does not count. It's discouraging.

Every needs to remember what the purpose of the federal gove't used to be, and then ultimately the President (the head of the federal gov't).  Originally the Fed was not involved in the day to day lives of the citizens, but rather helped regulate the defense of all the States as well as intrastate commerce.  That is just about it.  So th eonly need was for the States themselves to vote for a President, not the individual citizens.  Basically the Fed gov't was designed to serve the States, not each individual citizen.

I remember what it's purpose was, obviously it was revised and in a correct manner. The Federal Government should be even more active in my opinion, usurping individual state rights. The varying laws from state to state (for instance) are already goofy enough. More uniformity would be welcome in my book.

I remember what it's purpose was, obviously it was revised and in a correct manner. The Federal Government should be even more active in my opinion, usurping individual state rights. The varying laws from state to state (for instance) are already goofy enough. More uniformity would be welcome in my book.

I might be incline dto agree with you if not for a couple points. First and foremost, there are way too few instances ot the federal gov't managing things efficiently. Secondly, the US is so large and diverse that a one size fits all policy really doesn't work.

I might be incline dto agree with you if not for a couple points. First and foremost, there are way too few instances ot the federal gov't managing things efficiently. Secondly, the US is so large and diverse that a one size fits all policy really doesn't work.

Well of course one blanket can't possibly cover all of the US.

I'm speaking primarily of big issues, abortion comes to mind and the way it is handled. Certian things are legal in one state but a neighboring state it is completely illegal. This would not completely remove the State Government either, just as a city government is not made useless by a state one. Local ordinaces are still possible, for "minor" issues (i.e. state roadways, trash collection, etc.) I'd like to see the states pushed more toward logicistics than policy making.

As for efficient government, it isn't as if states are any leaner than the Federal Government, just smaller.

The Electoral College should be done away with.. it's pretty much pointless.. But having it proves that your vote doesnt mean ****.

Funny how you can get the most votes and still lose with it.

I may be wrong.. but basically the majority of the votes goes to one elect. And that guy gets the electoral vote for that state.. and everyone else who voted for the other guy doesnt matter execpt in popular vote. So if you vote and your guy doesnt win your your state.. you just wasted your time... and everything else involved in the election. IE. Your vote = doesnt mean dick.

So if you vote and your guy doesnt win your your state.. you just wasted your time... and everything else involved in the election. IE. Your vote = doesnt mean dick.

The same logic could be applied to popular votes too.

If you and 32 million others vote and 34 million vote for the other guy 32 million people just 'wasted' their time because their guy didn't win the country.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!