Are there good reasons to retain the electoral college?

[dmens]

One really good reason would be to prevent the massive whine tsunami that would no doubt occur if the next Democratic candidate lost the popular vote in 2008, but would have won via the old electoral college system.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Craig234
You fail to understand the difference between opposing the *violation* of the constitution as it exists to violate Americans' rights, and advocating a legal modification to make it more fair.

I *guarantee* you wouldn't be advocating this position had Gore won, and Bush taken the majority.

That makes you a confessed liar.

I would absolutely take the same position - I can 'guarantee' it. I can speak for myself and you can not.

"The Constitution is an outdated document".... right Craig?

Speak clearly if you want to try to make an argument - what are you talking, what are you trying to say?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

The electoral college is a large injustice to democracy, to the 'one voter one vote' idea, and it's all but impossble to change, because the number of *states* who benefit - albeit a relatively small percent of the nation's population, off the top of my head perhaps 20% - are more than the number needed to block changing it under the constitutional amendment requirements.

A large injustice to democracy? Maybe to direct democracy, but the framers of our constitution would certainly disagree with you.

Read the first paragraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...y_in_the_United_States

Read what I said again - I agree with the founding fathers about the concerns of the majority abusing minorities. I called it a weakness of democracy.

What I said also is that there is no reason to treat one such minority - low population states - with special privileges of extra votes, while not doing the same for other minorities.

The answer is to protect minorities generally, as the founding fathers attempted to do with the bill of rights, not to aribtrarily single out one minority group for extra votes.

If I disagreed with the founding fathers on this, I'd say so; but it appears they and I are in agreement, other than their having to compromise on the elctoral college.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Civics lesson everyone....The US is not a true democracy. Never was. Never will be.

This is the third time in a week I've had to post that this claim is a pointless, pedantic, waste.

There has never been a so-called "true democracy", and there's no indication there will be. The word democracy has that obsolete technical definition in books, but in usage it's come to mean simply the right of the people to vote on their government, including a republic. Check the dictionaries yourself, who don't even much reference the definition you're pushing, for example dictionary.com:

1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.

They list other dictionaries, each of which says the same thing.

 

[Excelsior]

Read what I said again - I agree with the founding fathers about the concerns of the majority abusing minorities. I called it a weakness of democracy.

Oh, so then you'd understand why they would believe in a system like the electoral college since it lessens the impact of this "weakness".

What I said also is that there is no reason to treat one such minority - low population states - with special privileges of extra votes, while not doing the same for other minorities.

The answer is to protect minorities generally, as the founding fathers attempted to do with the bill of rights, not to aribtrarily single out one minority group for extra votes.

Compromises have to be made on various levels if a nation such as ours is going to have a representative democracy. The founding fathers knew this, which is why we our government is still intact today. Going off the popular vote alone is really an awful idea when dealing with ~300 million people and 50 separate states for one election. I don't know why you have so much trouble understanding this. Each and every state is going to be represented by the same person in a federal election...which is exactly why something like the electoral college is important.

Does it favour less populous states? Absolutely. Is that better than the large metro areas getting most/all of the attention? Without a doubt.

If I disagreed with the founding fathers on this, I'd say so; but it appears they and I are in agreement, other than their having to compromise on the electoral college.

Are you serious? You think they would be in agreement with you?

You think the electoral college should be done away with, correct?

The founding fathers supported a system such as the electoral college, correct?

You are definitely not in agreement with them. It is as simple as that.

Hey, if this country wasn't made up of 50 states, I'd totally understand your argument...but it isn't. The founding fathers knew that the playing field had to be kept level to some degree, and the electoral college does that. Is it perfect? No. Is any government perfect? Hell no. Is it better than going by just the popular vote? Yes, because this country is a nation of united states...so especially in any federal election, it should be obvious why going by the popular vote is an awful idea.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Craig234
The electoral college is a large injustice to democracy, to the 'one voter one vote' idea, and it's all but impossble to change, because the number of *states* who benefit - albeit a relatively small percent of the nation's population, off the top of my head perhaps 20% - are more than the number needed to block changing it under the constitutional amendment requirements.

How can it then be an injustice to us then?

We are not a democracy.

The electorial system gives smaller states at least some power. If we took the EC away only the biggest states would matter, you wouldn't see candidates veer much from the top 12 states in the US.


Your constant reference to democracy is stupid, we are not one and cannot be judge vy such a system. The founding fathers knew the dangers of a democracy. Face it, if we were one minorities would be toast. California is a perfect example of one run amok with the voters essentially voting themselves all the benefits and trying to not pay for them (Via their proposition system system)

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Craig234
The electoral college is a large injustice to democracy, to the 'one voter one vote' idea, and it's all but impossble to change, because the number of *states* who benefit - albeit a relatively small percent of the nation's population, off the top of my head perhaps 20% - are more than the number needed to block changing it under the constitutional amendment requirements.

How can it then be an injustice to us then?

We are not a democracy.

The electorial system gives smaller states at least some power. If we took the EC away only the biggest states would matter, you wouldn't see candidates veer much from the top 12 states in the US.


Your constant reference to democracy is stupid, we are not one and cannot be judge vy such a system. The founding fathers knew the dangers of a democracy. Face it, if we were one minorities would be toast. California is a perfect example of one run amok with the voters essentially voting themselves all the benefits and trying to not pay for them (Via their proposition system system)

That's not a valid argument, why do the smaller states DESERVE more power than their populations give them?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Civics lesson everyone....The US is not a true democracy. Never was. Never will be.

Thanks, professor. But what we're not arguing about what the US *IS*, just what it COULD be. Or do you argue against every potential change by saying "that's not how it is right now"? Wait, of course you do...you're a conservative!

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Corn
I find it ever so amusing to read the forum lefties bemoan Bush wiping his ass with the constitution then on the next page want to dismantle our constitutionally mandated system of government. Silly liberati.

Trolling aside, it was nice of you to acknowledge that Bush has been wiping his ass with the constitution.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Craig234
The electoral college is a large injustice to democracy, to the 'one voter one vote' idea, and it's all but impossble to change, because the number of *states* who benefit - albeit a relatively small percent of the nation's population, off the top of my head perhaps 20% - are more than the number needed to block changing it under the constitutional amendment requirements.

How can it then be an injustice to us then?

We are not a democracy.

The electorial system gives smaller states at least some power. If we took the EC away only the biggest states would matter, you wouldn't see candidates veer much from the top 12 states in the US.


Your constant reference to democracy is stupid, we are not one and cannot be judge vy such a system. The founding fathers knew the dangers of a democracy. Face it, if we were one minorities would be toast. California is a perfect example of one run amok with the voters essentially voting themselves all the benefits and trying to not pay for them (Via their proposition system system)

That's not a valid argument, why do the smaller states DESERVE more power than their populations give them?

It's a perfectly, absolutely valid argument. America is a federation of states, and thus each of those states warrant fairly equal representation in the federal executive branch. I mean, if you feel this is unfair, you should also rally against the need to get three-fourths of state Congresses for ratification of a constitutional amendment. Then the voice of the majority can really get heard.

Tyranny of the majority needs to be guarded against just as much as with a tyranny of the minority.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Civics lesson everyone....The US is not a true democracy. Never was. Never will be.

Thanks, professor. But what we're not arguing about what the US *IS*, just what it COULD be. Or do you argue against every potential change by saying "that's not how it is right now"? Wait, of course you do...you're a conservative!

Not a conservative.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Craig234
The electoral college is a large injustice to democracy, to the 'one voter one vote' idea, and it's all but impossible to change, because the number of *states* who benefit - albeit a relatively small percent of the nation's population, off the top of my head perhaps 20% - are more than the number needed to block changing it under the constitutional amendment requirements.

How can it then be an injustice to us then?

We are not a democracy.

The electoral system gives smaller states at least some power. If we took the EC away only the biggest states would matter, you wouldn't see candidates veer much from the top 12 states in the US.


Your constant reference to democracy is stupid, we are not one and cannot be judge vy such a system. The founding fathers knew the dangers of a democracy. Face it, if we were one minorities would be toast. California is a perfect example of one run amok with the voters essentially voting themselves all the benefits and trying to not pay for them (Via their proposition system system)

That's not a valid argument, why do the smaller states DESERVE more power than their populations give them?

It was a concession to create the union. It was envisioned that the larger states could run roughshod over the smaller ones and attempt to force their choices on them.
4 Score and 7 years later, it was proved that it would be able to be done.

The population centers on the East & West coasts do not reflect the overall values of the US - yet they would have the power to dictate their values upon the rest.

The greater Boston area can control the Mass vote, the same with NYC.
Miami, Palm Beach and Ft Lauderdale can control Fla; Phili & Pitts control Penn, etc

Those 12 states are in themselves controlled by a couple of dozen cities; which may not reflect the makeup of their state, let alone the country.

Yet if you pull the EC; you have those few cities controlling the elections.

The EC system may not be perfect; but no-one will be happy in any situation.

 

[manowar821]

The Electoral College is pointless, IMO. It's only one of MANY things wrong within our governmental process, though.

Also, I also pull out the "USA isn't a democracy" card. When I do that, I'm not speaking of a "true democracy" either. I'm saying that the USA is not the kind of democracy that many think it is. It's more of a "representative"-despotism, quotes being there to demonstrate that we're not being accurately represented.

I'm not trolling, I swear. I actually believe this. I would not applaud if the EC was removed, because it's something that should have never been. Much in the same way that I don't compliment a rapist changing his ways, he shouldn't have raped someone in the first place. It's the first baby step in a long stairway to a good respectable country/government.

 

[dyna]

It would make recounts harder and probably make it a little easier to corrupt the voting system with fraudulent votes.

 

[Thump553]

The electoral college is the main (perhaps only) reason we have a two party system today. The only way to get rid of it would be if both the GOP and the Democratic parties agreed to support the the steps necessary to amend the Constitution to abolish it-which abolishment would likely be the death of one, probably both, of those parties.

Short answer-it isn't going to happen.

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Only if we make it a requirement to take some kind of political aptitude test. The average voter is absolutely naive to politics. By choice mind you, but still.

In theory, yes. In practice, no way.

Definitely, we don't want people who elected Bush voting again 😀

You who lacked even the most basic reading comprehension to understand simple trains of thought in http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2070345&enterthread=y">THIS THREAD</a> would be the first one eliminated from the voting rolls.

The piece was about Live Earth imposing policies that make African development a hundred times more difficult and what you apparently took out of that was "Drive a Hummer and save Africa." Educate yourself before you question the education level of others.

I would take a southern hick's vote over yours because at least many of them have common sense. They aren't curing cancer but I'm pretty sure they could have figured out what that article was about.

You sir, are the dumbest person to discover the internet so far.

 

[Stunt]

The electoral college is important as it gives a rural voice. The same happens in other countries like Canada where Toronto has 6million of Canada's 31million people. The federal government would have 20% of the parliament from Toronto, the provincial government would have over 50% from Toronto plus local government. This gives way too much power to one group of people with the same concerns.

In the US if 1 person = 1 vote, the presidential candidates wouldn't even step foot in smaller states; hell they seem to focus on swing states as it stands now. Both of these methods are very un-democratic. I like the idea of electoral votes distributed proportionally based on popular vote. ie. 60% of the vote = 60% of electoral college votes.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

another thing people are forgetting.

The states can have their electors vote however the state decides. For the most part most do an all or nothing based on the outcome of popular vote, but nothing in the Constitution sets forth the rights of citizens to determine who is President.



Now what I would not mind seeing is removing the 17th Amendment so that Senators are once again determined by the State Legislatures, this would hopefully make Washington more in tune with the wishes of States instead of parties.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Stunt
The electoral college is important as it gives a rural voice. The same happens in other countries like Canada where Toronto has 6million of Canada's 31million people. The federal government would have 20% of the parliament from Toronto, the provincial government would have over 50% from Toronto plus local government. This gives way too much power to one group of people with the same concerns.

In the US if 1 person = 1 vote, the presidential candidates wouldn't even step foot in smaller states; hell they seem to focus on swing states as it stands now. Both of these methods are very un-democratic. I like the idea of electoral votes distributed proportionally based on popular vote. ie. 60% of the vote = 60% of electoral college votes.

Oddly, I think that most Americans would benefit from a quick study of Canada to understand why the EC is necessary. Our drastic concentrations of population are a perfect example of why you can't let these things be fully democratic. It's be the country of Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal (Alberta would separate ASAP so I won't count them).

 

[OutHouse]

yes, its not perfect but its the best system out there for fairness.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Muse
Topic Title: Are there good reasons to retain the electoral college?

No

There is no accountability for their actions.

They have the power to nullify the will of the people and that is wrong.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Read what I said again - I agree with the founding fathers about the concerns of the majority abusing minorities. I called it a weakness of democracy.

Oh, so then you'd understand why they would believe in a system like the electoral college since it lessens the impact of this "weakness".

Wrong. They would *not* believe in singling out one group for special protection arbitrarily; they'd prefer what theyactually did, a bill of rights, to protect any minority group.

Even individuals.

The electoral college was not created because of broad agreement that it was an improvement to democracy, but because it was a political compromise demanded by the smaller states, and the founding fathers recognized that building the agreement for independant colonies to agree to subject themselves to a central authority would require some compromise - the word compromise doesn't mean they LIKE the plan, it means the opposite, that they don't like it but agree it has to be done for other reasons.

What I said also is that there is no reason to treat one such minority - low population states - with special privileges of extra votes, while not doing the same for other minorities.

The answer is to protect minorities generally, as the founding fathers attempted to do with the bill of rights, not to aribtrarily single out one minority group for extra votes.

Compromises have to be made on various levels if a nation such as ours is going to have a representative democracy.

Sometimes; but that doesn't make them anything other than injustices to democracy.

Because the smaller states were willing to block the creation of the nation rather than have democracy that was fair, they were able to force this injustice into the system.

That doesn't mean that it's any more fair and deserves to remain any more than the similar compromise to count slaves as 3/5 of a person for purposes of representation.

Do you defend that equally as a 'compromise' that 'has to be made if we are going to have a representative democracy'? Why not?

I'll answer why not for you: because they're both wrongs that were passed for political needs in the 18th century which should be corrected now.

The founding fathers knew this, which is why we our government is still intact today.

First, if you check your history book, you will see that the compromise did NOT work to keep the government intact 75 years later - there was something called the civil war.

Second, you are arguing in a sloppy manner to try to say that all compromises made when the country was founded are needed for it to remain intact. BS. Prove your argument.

Going off the popular vote alone is really an awful idea when dealing with ~300 million people and 50 separate states for one election. I don't know why you have so much trouble understanding this.

Because you have yet to make any cogent statement about it?

There are three issues we can discuss, let me clearly lay them out for you:

1. Should the Senate have representation based on population, or by state?

2. Should the electoral college give extra representation to low population states?

3. Should the presidential vote be a popular vote, or should each state cast all of its votes for the candidate who gets the most votes?

That third topic is one raised by what you said, about 'going off the popular vote alone', but it's different than the main topic of this thread, issue #2.

For now, why don't we stick to the idea that the only change under consideration is to stop giving low population states extra representation in violation of 'one voter, one vote'.

Each and every state is going to be represented by the same person in a federal election...which is exactly why something like the electoral college is important.

I can't tell what you are trying to say there.

Does it favour less populous states? Absolutely. Is that better than the large metro areas getting most/all of the attention? Without a doubt.

Actually, there's a lot of doubt about that. Why SHOULDN'T the large majority of PEOPLE get the large majority of representaton?

As has been pointed out for you repeatedly - why do YOU have a hard time with it - why should that particular type of minority, low population state, get extra representation?

There are all kinds of ways to divide the people in the US into two groups where one is a minority - but none of the other minority groups gets this sort of 'extra voting'.

We know why they got it, the historical accident that they had leverage to blackmail the creation of the constitution - but that doesn't make it right to keep it.

If you want to tell me why they deserve extra votes, then explain it in terms of fairness in democracy, and why other groups don't deserve it, and why the better solution, as the founfing fathers preferred, isn't to have rights of all minority groups, including individuals, protected instead of giving extra votes to one group.

If I disagreed with the founding fathers on this, I'd say so; but it appears they and I are in agreement, other than their having to compromise on the electoral college.

Are you serious? You think they would be in agreement with you? [/quote]

Yes, just as they were on the 3/5 representation issue, which they agreed to compromise on, but which was hardly what they would have written if they had their way.

You think the electoral college should be done away with, correct?

Well, that would be fine; mainly, the violation of "one voter, one vote" should be done away with. The "all state votes go to one candidate" issue is a separate one to discuss.

The founding fathers supported a system such as the electoral college, correct?

My impression is that they did not, but they compromised on it to get the constitution passed, as stated previously.

You are definitely not in agreement with them. It is as simple as that.

See where a false assumption gets you?

Hey, if this country wasn't made up of 50 states, I'd totally understand your argument...but it isn't. The founding fathers knew that the playing field had to be kept level to some degree, and the electoral college does that. Is it perfect? No. Is any government perfect? Hell no. Is it better than going by just the popular vote? Yes, because this country is a nation of united states...so especially in any federal election, it should be obvious why going by the popular vote is an awful idea.

You're arguing for the state to cast all of its votes for one candidate, if I read that correctly. As I said, I see that as a separate topic. Saying "the playing filed had to be kept level" has a nice sound to it, like apple pie, but tossing out a cliche isn't an argument - that makes the playing field UNEVEN for the 'one voter, one vote' principle. You have to justify that, and with more than 'oh that poor minority of low population states will be so mistreated" any more than any other minority group in the US, an issue better addressed by minority rights.

As shown, as wrong as the extra votes are even if they 'kept the peace', they didn't even do that; they merely let the constitution get approved, and were hard to change later.

The low population states are not more deserving of extra votes; they merely had more leverage to get them (just as slave states for the 3/5 compromise).

One final question for you: why don't you show me where the majority of the founding fathers, in all their talk of democracy, *advocated* for those extra votes?

I don't mean their agreeing to compromise on them, but where in things like the Federalist Papers they said "by the way, extra votes for low population states is better democracy".

I'm open to it being proven if some of them - likely from low population states - had something positive to say, but my impression is that overall, they did not say that.

So, I think that we'd be better off to have the big states campaign to pressure the smaller ones to fix this injustice. Unfortunately, it seems unlikely.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Rainsford

That's not a valid argument, why do the smaller states DESERVE more power than their populations give them?

It's a perfectly, absolutely valid argument. America is a federation of states, and thus each of those states warrant fairly equal representation in the federal executive branch. I mean, if you feel this is unfair, you should also rally against the need to get three-fourths of state Congresses for ratification of a constitutional amendment. Then the voice of the majority can really get heard.

Tyranny of the majority needs to be guarded against just as much as with a tyranny of the minority.

To say the same thing as in the previous post, you did not answer why that one particular type of minority - low population states - deserves extra votes in a democracy.

You can divide the US into all kinds of 'sub groups' - the "North" and the "South" in the civil war is one example - but you have to justify why this 'low population state' minority group deserves extra votes while other groups don't. You're right that we need to protect from the tyrrany of the majority - which is why the bill of rights and other amendments grant just such protection, rather than giving just one sub group, low population states, extra votes.

You have not justified why to do that at all.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Muse
Topic Title: Are there good reasons to retain the electoral college?

No

There is no accountability for their actions.

They have the power to nullify the will of the people and that is wrong.

What the hell are you talking about.
You nullify by not voting for the incumbent, the representatives of the people have the ability to impeach. There's lots of opportunities to hold elected officials to account. Most people voted for the current administration and congress...get over it.

You think your saving grace was the Democrats, but they too have been absolutely useless in holding the president to account. Time for new leadership in congress and for the country. Looking forward to 2008 🙂

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Stunt
The electoral college is important as it gives a rural voice.

The rural people HAVE a voice: one voter, one vote, that much voice.

They don't deserve a 'bonus' voice violating one voter, one vote.

Once again, you can divide the country into all kinds of 'sub groups'; you can't give all of them 'extra votes'.

Instead, pass general rights protecting minority interests from the tyranny of the majority, instead of a broken kludge for one group and leaving things unfixed for other groups.

In the US if 1 person = 1 vote, the presidential candidates wouldn't even step foot in smaller states[/quote]

So, they'd divide their time by the number of citizens at stake, rather than an artifical weighting giving one minority group more representation. Oh, the horror.

Welcome to democracy.

If 80% of voters care about universal health care, and 20% about smoking issues, they'll probably put 80% of their time on universal health care. That's democracy.

If 80% of voters are in populated states and 20% in unpoulated states, they'll probably put... oh, ya, more than 20% of their time in unpopulated states because of this system.

hell they seem to focus on swing states as it stands now. Both of these methods are very un-democratic.

Yes, because it's yet another artifical weighting outside of 'one voter, one vote', caused by the "all of a state's votes go to one candidate" rule.

The problem in fixing that one is that it needs a national fix, because any one state who makes the change is throwing away their leverage. Candidates would have a hard time justifying much time in swinging a few percent of votes there, when there are many states whose entire vote is at risk.