Your thoughts on the Electoral College

[Destian]

Hi.

[OPaul]

The Electoral College is left over from the preindustrial period when there was no quick way of communicating long distance. It is not needed in modern day.

[hoyablue]

The Electoral College is left over from the preindustrial period when there was no quick way of communicating long distance. It is not needed in modern day.

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

[OPaul]

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.

[hoyablue]

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/politi...leccol/katz.htm

*cough* proportional representation *cough*

[hoyablue]

http://jceb.co.jackson.mo.us/fun_stuff/electoral_college.htm

Even if technology was a factor, it was just that, a factor. It wasn't the driving force in the creation if the electoral college.

[OPaul]

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

[hoyablue]

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.

[nuka_t]

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

[ANova]

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.

[kairon]

States shouldnt have more power over each other in picking a president. It should be a majority vote.

[Fotix]

Yeah, one citizen, one vote, regardless of other geography, add'em up.

[hoyablue]

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.

[hoyablue]

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.

[Destian]

I'm a little surprised no one chose the third option. I can understand those who believe that states should keep electoral votes. However, I see absolutely no reason so keep the college around.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

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.

[Aaron Veteran]

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.

[Danrarbc]

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.

[Destian]

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.

[Dave Veteran]

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.

[Aaron Veteran]

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.

[Dave Veteran]

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.

[Soviet]

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.

[San Diego]

IMO, we live in a democracy or at least we try too and if that's so, we should hold elections and whomever gets the most votes, wins! That simple!

[Danrarbc]

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.