- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Messages
- 17,343
- Reaction score
- 2,876
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
No. There's nothing wrong with the EC and so no reason to change it.
And even if it did, it would not pass the states.
No. There's nothing wrong with the EC and so no reason to change it.Should Congress create an amendment to get rid of the electoral college? Why or why not?
Superdelagates? Are you discussing a primary election?So essentially we are making one persons vote less valuable then someone elses. Not to mention super delegates.
Can you back this up? I'm not looking to pick a fight, I'm looking to further educate myself. Thanks.Superdelagates? Are you discussing a primary election?
If not, then there;s no such thing.
The People do not elect the President, the states do. The states curretly allow their electors to be chosen by a vote of the people, but are not required to.
Therefore, the value of any goven person's vote, should there be a vote, is found within the state the vote was cast. In that, all votes for all people are equal.
Which part?Can you back this up?
Which part?
"The People do not elect the President, the states do. The states curretly allow their electors to be chosen by a vote of the people, but are not required to."
Note the bolded text.Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Does that give you what you need?The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;
The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;
Sure does. I appreciate it.US Constitution, Article II Section I:
Note the bolded text.
The state legislatures could determine the allocation of their state's electors with a game of poker, should they decide to.
US Constitution, Amendment XII:
Does that give you what you need?
Abortion is a state issue so New York wouldn't decide Nebraska's abortion laws.
The proper level of and for governmental regulation of abortion is a 10th amendment issue.Abortion is an individual right. It's a 9th amendment issue, not a 10th amendment issue.
The proper level of and for governmental regulation of abortion is a 10th amendment issue.
You mean like when the right is exercised in a public place/forum, or when exercising the right directly endangers the rights of others?Regulate only in the sense that states regulate speech, religion and any other individual right. States have no power to prohibit or severely restrict abortion, just as they have no power to prohibit or severely restrict religion.
The right exists, whether states like it or not.
I agree with both of you, to a point. Elections, at least recent ones have shown the same result either way. But, I feel that if the electoral college were done away with, more people would vote. This is both good and bad. Usual election turn-out is 42% on good year presidental campaigns. If more people turned out, then you would see the coastal states reign supreme. The founders wanted the electoral college because they feared that if more populous states silenced the smaller one's, which would be the case with red vs. blue states, then succession might occur. Imagine that voter turnout reached 70%. If Democrats continuously won the White House, conservatives would eventually grow so distraught that the Union would surely be endangered.
Do you guys find a reason why this should not be a fear in 2009?
Regarding incumbency rate, that is a result of uninformed voters it can happen in any system of government... Including a republic.
The electoral college does exactly what it is supposed to do, exactly the way it should be done. Thus, there's no reason to abolish it.While I don't think democracy is ideal, giving disproportionate power to less populous areas serves no legitimate purpose. People in smaller states do not have their particular rights threatened, but historically have rather used their disproportionate power to threaten the rights of others, especially Blacks in the past. The electoral college should be abolished.
Oh, well...uh uhIt wasn't posed to you sir.
Yeah CL, I know about the various "compromises", but I think a republican form was agreed to by most.Actually, that there was disagreement among the Founding Fathers as to the best form of government is pretty much established history.
However, that does not mean that the Founding Fathers would necessarily have been in favor of frivolous amendments for transient reasons. In that regard they were all a pretty conservative bunch.
The electoral college does not give more power to less populous areas. It emulates the house of representatives, not the Senate; electors are apportioned according to a state's population.
Thats why he said it "emulates" the house of representatives.No actually it's equal to the number of BOTH. Number in House + 2 Senators = electoral votes.
You mean like when the right is exercised in a public place/forum, or when exercising the right directly endangers the rights of others?
Right?
Thats why he said it "emulates" the house of representatives.
Given that the President is the head of Government, elected by the states, and that the Federal Government governs over a Republic of sovereign states, the electoral college shoud have 50 memebers, one from each state, as under the Constitution, each state is equal.Well that only means it's less independent of population than the Senate, which itself is totaly independent of population. But 100 of the votes are based upon the Senate. That means the electoral college does not reflect the popular vote, and people in less populous states get disproportionate power, as I said.
Given that the President is the head of Government, elected by the states, and that the Federal Government governs over a Republic of sovereign states, the electoral college shoud have 50 memebers, one from each state, as under the Constitution, each state is equal.
The people dont elect the President, and so that doesn't matter.Considering the language of the Constitution you are technically correct. But I would very much oppose that, as I see no reason to give each Alaskan 50 times the voice of each Californian.
People are trying to get rid of the electoral college even though what they should be doing is writing their state legislators requesting that their state use a proportional system in divvying up electoral votes. Like Maine uses.
If all the people in the "minority" parties for their states rallied for this, it would eventually pass. But too much focus is being placed on it being a national thing when it is totally a state thing.
Right now, in the current system, your vote can count. If your state altered the way they delegate the EC votes. They only talk about abolishing the EC in order to make you think they actyally care.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?