View Full Version : The electoral college...convince me.
nosoup4crr
26-05-2006, 10:41
Please, someone convince me that the electoral college is something other than an arcane system, once used to stabalize a now sturdy representative structure. I don't think I really understand the necessity for this in any manner. But, I'd love to be convinced otherwise, if you can think of legitimite responses.
I always thought it was just a way to make the votes of some people worth less than the votes of others by an inexact matching of the numbers of voters per seat between the states and by making upto 49% of the votes in a lot of states worth nothing at all.
SaroDarksbane
26-05-2006, 13:06
by making upto 49% of the votes in a lot of states worth nothing at all.
Yeah, I think that's the one.
Won't find me defending it. I think it's quite dumb, in fact.
cyclotronic
26-05-2006, 13:15
Supposedly it supports a multi party system, along with giving power to all states of the union to elect a president.
Draconis
26-05-2006, 13:23
The Electoral College seems to be designed to increase the power of the smaller States in electing a President, with the side-effect of decreasing the power of the citizen. Or if not strictly decreasing, at least setting up an uneven distribution of electoral influence among citizens of various States.
cyclotronic
26-05-2006, 13:34
It was created so that the big cities wouldnt have all the say in who was president, but this was a long time ago, i call for reform!
innorton38
26-05-2006, 13:42
My history teacher in college said that the Electoral College was also created because way back in the beginning of this democracy, it was impossible/improbable to have a central voting location for the nation (no electronic voting machines, email, or any of those kind of things) so people in each state voted via the electoral college and then only they had to get together and turn in their votes. It makes sense to me but I haven't heard that from anyone else.....
It was created so that the big cities wouldnt have all the say in who was president, but this was a long time ago, i call for reform!
One word - Hitler.
Two more words - President Madonna.
Our founding fathers were almost as cautious about the potential of mob rule as they were over the potential of class systems.
You lost me at "sturdy representative structure".
One word - Hitler.
Two more words - President Madonna.
Our founding fathers were almost as cautious about the potential of mob rule as they were over the potential of class systems.
I don't see how this would prevent a dictator (assuming the public voted for him) as I'm sure if he won several million votes to put people in the seats of the electoral college he can find a couple of hundred people to say yes on the day.
I don't see how this would prevent a dictator (assuming the public voted for him) as I'm sure if he won several million votes to put people in the seats of the electoral college he can find a couple of hundred people to say yes on the day.
I'm not saying it is perfect, I'm just saying that one of the rational explanations I've heard is to prevent something like Ross Perot or Jesse Ventura at the national level without having some effective dampening.
buttershug
26-05-2006, 15:30
Scientific American did an article on it 10-15 years ago.
It was thorough and well written. I think it would convince a lot of people.
From what I remembered it compared it to the World Series, in that there can only be one winner.
IRC it was to prevent a single state, or worse a single county, being a tie breaker.
hmm The aritcle might not be so convincing today............
AeroJonesy
26-05-2006, 15:33
No one would ever campaign in "America's Heartland" because there aren't as many votes to be had there.
No one would ever campaign in "America's Heartland" because there aren't as many votes to be had there.
Does that mean that someone living there should have a more important vote than someone in New York?
Thelioness
26-05-2006, 16:04
Electoral College (http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf) explains it better than I can.
Basically, the electoral college ensures that we have a two party system rather than a multi-party system.
Drawback: You lose no matter who you vote for.
Advantage: Things actually get done. In a multi-party system, it is really hard to get over 50% of the vote for a bill to pass.
buttershug
26-05-2006, 18:46
Actually it was more set up for multi-party.
I've remembered the article a little better.
The crux was that there can only be one winner, but no one candidate would get over 50% in a multi-party system.
Each level of the system homogenizes the results.
A lot of mixed people elect one elector.
Each states elector goes for one candidate.
The college elects one person.
But it's probably inevitable that it would end up evolving into a two party system.
One ideology would organize ahead of time, then the other would.
KillerAim
26-05-2006, 18:53
We are a republic, not a democracy. In fact, the Founding Fathers never considered the United States a democracy. See how many times the word word “democracy” is referred to anywhere in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.
-
The Founding Fathers were fearful of a full-blown democracy and thought it was unworkable.
Charles Pinckney -- “An Election by the people being liable to the most obvious & striking objections. They will be led by a few active & designing men. The most populous States by combining in favor of the same individual will be able to carry their points.”
James Madison – “From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”
At the same time, the Founding Fathers realized that giving each member State an equal vote would also be unfair. The existing governmental framework, the Articles of Confederation, had such a “One State One Vote” process. They had seen many problems arise because each State varied widely in size, population, wealth, commerce, and economic power among other differences.
Our Government was set up to reflect a compromise between a full-blown democracy and an equal-vote Republic. They set up a Congress, which is comprised of two bodies: the House of Representatives, whose members are apportioned by population; and the Senate, with two representatives from each State. The Electoral College reflects this compromise by allowing each state to have a member for each of its senators and each of its congressmen.
Did anyone realize that in 2000, Bush won the electoral votes of 30 out of the 50 States and 78% of the counties in the United States? Bush dominated the suburbs and small towns while Gore took many of the medium size towns and almost all of the large cities. In fact, if Gore didn’t win strong pluralities in Seattle, Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit, Des Moines, and Philadelphia, he would have lost in Washington, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, and in Pennsylvania, respectively.
It has been estimated that if a candidate could win the vote of the top ten cities in the United States, he would almost be assured of winning the popular vote. If the Electoral College were eliminated, a winning strategy would be to cater to the wishes of the large metropolitan urbanites at the expense of everyone else. I sure the hell don’t want that to happen.
Why do you hate democracy KillerAim?
No one would ever campaign in "America's Heartland" because there aren't as many votes to be had there.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but they also in general have a lower voter turnout, right?
Basically, the electoral college ensures that we have a two party system rather than a multi-party system.
That can't be right. As far as I know the electoral college system is unique to America, but Australia and Britain (to name just two) definitely have two party systems. In fact at the moment I'd say we have a one and a half party system.
We are a republic, not a democracy. In fact, the Founding Fathers never considered the United States a democracy. See how many times the word word “democracy” is referred to anywhere in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who knows this. "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner" and so on.
Why do you hate democracy KillerAim?
Familiarity breeds contempt.
Stevinator
27-05-2006, 03:26
I hate democracy. half these idiots can't balance their checkbooks and we're letting them vote! bah!
okay, jk, I'm just cranky
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.