• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

electoral college? who needs it!

MrAchilles

New member
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Who else besides me hates the electoral college? EC is the exact reason why people don't vote. The media tries to hype everyone up to vote in the presidential elections and it's still discouraging because the candidates have to win a certain number of states to win. The popular vote doesn't even matter (see 2000 Election) unless you win the states along with it. This country is supposed to be democratic, well the EC is very Republic if you ask me. For this country to be a democracy Popular vote should prevail and the EC should be done away with.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
From a previous post of mine...

Let's say there are 5 states...California, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and Utah...California is overtly Democrat...the other four overtly Republican...If they ALL had equal voter populations, you'd never see a Democratic President ever again...But that's not the case...quite the opposite...

Since California's voter population outweighs the other four states combined, there would be no need to campaign in any of them...Why push for 500,000 votes across thousands of square miles when you can push to get that in San Diego alone?...No one will go there...

Now AFTER the election, who will the winner pander to?...The people who got him in there...No representation whatsoever on the Executive level from the four states that were deemed irrelevant...California would be catered to and the rest of the country could go scratch...

Currently, populations of the top 10 states outweigh the remaining 40...If there was no Electoral College, the same scenario mentioned above would come into play...The nominees would see no reason to go to unpopulated areas when they could get more votes just by going to the states where there are large cities...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=107567&postcount=441
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Reaction score
306
Location
Geelong, Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I take it that the Electoral College was designed to protect the minority rights of, smaller populated states. I.e to prevent more urban sates from dominating rural states?

Although because the American constitution is well defined, and in the US Senate, all states have equal numbers of senators, I don't see why America needs the electoral college.

It also seems to cause a lot of problems, because if a President wins the Electoral College, but not the popular vote, the losing party gets a bit ticked off.

Mmmm.

Here in Australia, our government is based on the Westminster System. I.e the Prime Minister forms government by wining the majority of the seats in the lower house. (Our version of the US congress) Problem is that because our senate has equal representation of all states like, the U.S. The opposition can potentially be in the majority and block legislation, that passed through the lower house. (congress) Even though they didn't form the ruling governent.

I think the only efficient form of government is dictorship! Ha ha!
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
cnredd said:
From a previous post of mine...

Let's say there are 5 states...California, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and Utah...California is overtly Democrat...the other four overtly Republican...If they ALL had equal voter populations, you'd never see a Democratic President ever again...But that's not the case...quite the opposite...

Since California's voter population outweighs the other four states combined, there would be no need to campaign in any of them...Why push for 500,000 votes across thousands of square miles when you can push to get that in San Diego alone?...No one will go there...

Now AFTER the election, who will the winner pander to?...The people who got him in there...No representation whatsoever on the Executive level from the four states that were deemed irrelevant...California would be catered to and the rest of the country could go scratch...

Currently, populations of the top 10 states outweigh the remaining 40...If there was no Electoral College, the same scenario mentioned above would come into play...The nominees would see no reason to go to unpopulated areas when they could get more votes just by going to the states where there are large cities...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=107567&postcount=441
So your argument is that if there were no electoral college, politicians would only campaign in the largest states and pander to them, and ignore everyone else. Correct?

But think about it: How is that different from what we have now? All it would change is WHICH states politicians ignore and which states they pander to, and everything else being equal it may as well be the states with the most people that have the most influence. When is the last time you saw a presidential candidate seriously campaign in California or Texas? Certain states are already ignored, not because of their size but because they're "too blue" or "too red." Eliminating the electoral college wouldn't change the fact that certain states are ignored; it would just shift the forefront of the election from Ohio/Pennsylvania/Missouri/Iowa/Wisconsin/Michigan to Ohio/Pennsylvania/California/Texas/New York/Illinois. And all things considered, isn't that more democratic and fair anyway? Better the politicians campaign on the interests of the majority of the country, rather than on the obscure interests of particular swing states.

Why should residents of small states get a larger vote, just because they're a minority? Should we also give blacks, Latinos, millionaires, and homeless people a larger vote, just because they're a minority? The whole idea is profoundly undemocratic.
 
Last edited:

gwynn

New member
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
The better solution, IMHO, is to have all states split thier electoral college votes. Even in the those states which always elect a certain party, that party rarely ( if ever ) gets enough votes to account for all seats in that state.

The current system is ridiculous. It's not the swing states that even decide things. It's the swing voters in the swing states, which is a very small minority of all Americans.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Kandahar said:
So your argument is that if there were no electoral college, politicians would only campaign in the largest states and pander to them, and ignore everyone else. Correct?
You catch on quick!...:2wave:

Kandahar said:
But think about it: How is that different from what we have now? All it would change is WHICH states politicians ignore and which states they pander to, and everything else being equal it may as well be the states with the most people that have the most influence. When is the last time you saw a presidential candidate seriously campaign in California or Texas? Certain states are already ignored, not because of their size but because they're "too blue" or "too red."
ahhh...but here's the twist...what's "too blue" NOW might not be "too blue" 15 years from now...The political winds shift, albeit slower in certain areas, but they shift nonetheless...Go back in history and learn about the Southern Democrats...They're almost extinct nowadays...


Kandahar said:
Eliminating the electoral college wouldn't change the fact that certain states are ignored; it would just shift the forefront of the election from Ohio/Pennsylvania/Missouri/Iowa/Wisconsin/Michigan to Ohio/Pennsylvania/California/Texas/New York/Illinois.
True statement....NOW...see above...

Nomatter what the state...If a presidential candidate is up 20% or down 20%, winning or losing that state is pretty much written in stone...If that SAME state in the next election is +/- 2%, THEN you'll see an increase in campaigning...(doggedly, I might add)...That could be Rhode Island or it could be Illinois...

Kandahar said:
And all things considered, isn't that more democratic and fair anyway? Better the politicians campaign on the interests of the majority of the country, rather than on the obscure interests of particular swing states.
No offense, but this sounds insulting to the places of less dense populations..."obscure interests"?...What you are suggesting is taxation without equal representation...You suggest that a vote in New York is worth more than a vote in New Mexico...:roll:

As stated in my above paragraph...A +/-20% will prevent campaigning, but that doesn't mean the votes are worth any more or any less...It just means that those votes have already been DECIDED...The actual vote is just really dotting the "i"s and crossing the "t"s...

Kandahar said:
Why should residents of small states get a larger vote, just because they're a minority? Should we also give blacks, Latinos, millionaires, and homeless people a larger vote, just because they're a minority? The whole idea is profoundly undemocratic.
I have no idea where you get this claim...All state's votes are equal...at least when voting for the Executive Branch...What you are referring to; more representation for more dense populations...is already being done in the House of the representatives...
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
cnredd said:
ahhh...but here's the twist...what's "too blue" NOW might not be "too blue" 15 years from now...The political winds shift, albeit slower in certain areas, but they shift nonetheless...Go back in history and learn about the Southern Democrats...They're almost extinct nowadays...
Political winds shift, yes. But that doesn't change the fact that every election cycle will ignore a majority of the states.

cnredd said:
Nomatter what the state...If a presidential candidate is up 20% or down 20%, winning or losing that state is pretty much written in stone...If that SAME state in the next election is +/- 2%, THEN you'll see an increase in campaigning...(doggedly, I might add)...That could be Rhode Island or it could be Illinois...
Therein lies the problem. If I'm George Bush or John Kerry, I have absolutely no incentive to waste my time in a state where I'm up or down by 20%, even though there are certainly some swing voters in those states. I'm better off spending my time in a tiny "swing state" that maybe has 1/3 of 1% of the nation's people.

cnredd said:
No offense, but this sounds insulting to the places of less dense populations..."obscure interests"?
You are suggesting that small states need the electoral college because without it, politicians would ignore them. In this day and age, there is no longer the risk of large states "oppressing" smaller ones; in fact, small states generally don't have any political ideology discernible from their larger neighbors. Small-state Oklahoma has a lot more in common with large-state Texas than it does with small-state Vermont.

So yes, any statewide interests that would be ignored in a campaign without the electoral college, ARE obscure.

cnredd said:
...What you are suggesting is taxation without equal representation...You suggest that a vote in New York is worth more than a vote in New Mexico...:roll:
No, I'm suggesting that they should be worth the same amount. Under the electoral college, the vote of a New Mexican is worth many many times more than the vote of a New Yorker. If I live in New York, I may as well not even vote for president.

cnredd said:
As stated in my above paragraph...A +/-20% will prevent campaigning, but that doesn't mean the votes are worth any more or any less...It just means that those votes have already been DECIDED...The actual vote is just really dotting the "i"s and crossing the "t"s...
Actually it DOES mean that the votes are worth less, because any interests of that state will be ignored. Why waste time in California where the outcome is predetermined, even if the number of swing voters in California is larger than the entire population of New Mexico?

cnredd said:
I have no idea where you get this claim...All state's votes are equal.
That's not true, but even if it was, isn't it more important that all PEOPLE'S votes be equal?

cnredd said:
What you are referring to; more representation for more dense populations...is already being done in the House of the representatives...
The House of Representatives is certainly closer to accurate representative democracy than the presidency (although gerrymandering has corrupted this process as well), because politicians represent districts of roughly equal sizes.
 

F41

Active member
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
341
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Because the United States is a union, it would be unjust to deny one or more of our member states the equal voice of whom they would chose to lead this country. This is why our founding fathers enacted the E.C.

If we discarded the Electoral College, then those in the largest populated cities could in fact be the ones to dictate who would be president over all states. So with that in mind, one could see why only dems/libs are the only ones who seem to have a problem with the E.C. They would then only have to cater to the large cities and not concern themselves with the rest of the nation.

This would be oppressing the voice of many union states if we were leave it to the largest populated cities to decide. We would then no longer be a union of states, we would be a dictator of the states right to an equal voice.

Think about this, New York, Detroit, Cleveland, Miami, L.A., Atlanta, Boston and a few other large cities would then have the sole power to decide who would be leader over the rest of the country. This is unacceptable…..
 

MrAchilles

New member
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
What is the one word U.S.A keeps re-iterating around the world - Democracy. Say it with me now DEMOCRACY! The reason why Democrats are the only ones complaining is because the EC is undemocratic. Republicans wants the country governed Federally. This means less freedoms (see 9/11). Us democrats want this country to be a true Democracy. I personally share some of the same conservative values republicans do and thats why democrats and republicans need to work together instead of going at each others throats. Getting rid of the EC would make U.S.A. a true democracy. A country run by the people and for the people. Thats why the pilgrims came to this country, to free themselves from church and government control. Nowadays it seems like we are going back to government control. And i hate to say it but that falls in the hands of Republicans. It makes me think about the New World Order (Bush and the Skull and Bones). It's a damn shame.
 

F41

Active member
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
341
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
MrAchilles said:
What is the one word U.S.A keeps re-iterating around the world - Democracy. Say it with me now DEMOCRACY! The reason why Democrats are the only ones complaining is because the EC is undemocratic. Republicans wants the country governed Federally. This means less freedoms (see 9/11). Us democrats want this country to be a true Democracy. I personally share some of the same conservative values republicans do and thats why democrats and republicans need to work together instead of going at each others throats. Getting rid of the EC would make U.S.A. a true democracy. A country run by the people and for the people. Thats why the pilgrims came to this country, to free themselves from church and government control. Nowadays it seems like we are going back to government control. And i hate to say it but that falls in the hands of Republicans. It makes me think about the New World Order (Bush and the Skull and Bones). It's a damn shame.
Chill dude, you sound like a Democrat


Taking the E.C away is about one of the most undemocratic thing one can do to the people. I am a Federalist and believe that returning the power back to the individual states will in return give the power back to the people, and the E.C. is for for all the people of every state, and not to just a few, that is what democracy is, a fair voice of all the people, of all states. The only reason some dems and all libs want to take away the voice of the states is for their own political gain.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
ThePhoenix said:
Because the United States is a union, it would be unjust to deny one or more of our member states the equal voice of whom they would chose to lead this country. This is why our founding fathers enacted the E.C.
Wyoming's electoral votes are 0.557% of the nation's, yet its population is only 0.172% of the nation's. Wyoming has 168,843 people per electoral vote.

California's electoral votes are 10.223% of the nation's, yet its population is 12.223% of the nation's. California has 652,614 people per electoral vote.

In other words, your vote is worth 3.86 times as much if you live in Wyoming than it is if you live in California. And that's not even considering the unfairness of the "winner take all" system, or of politicians ignoring the wishes of the largest states.

ThePhoenix said:
If we discarded the Electoral College, then those in the largest populated cities could in fact be the ones to dictate who would be president over all states.
This is a democracy; the areas of the country with the most people SHOULD have the most influence.

I love how electoral-college supporters (read: partisan Republicans) always try to frame it in the interests of the poor, oppressed small states, never once considering the monumental unfairness that is forced on the INDIVIDUAL VOTERS by not weighing all votes equally.

ThePhoenix said:
So with that in mind, one could see why only dems/libs are the only ones who seem to have a problem with the E.C.
70% of the people in the country oppose the electoral college.

ThePhoenix said:
They would then only have to cater to the large cities and not concern themselves with the rest of the nation.
As opposed to only having to cater to a handful of purple states?

ThePhoenix said:
This would be oppressing the voice of many union states if we were leave it to the largest populated cities to decide. We would then no longer be a union of states, we would be a dictator of the states right to an equal voice.
The president is in charge of the entire country. As such, he should be elected by equal votes from everyone from all parts of the country.

ThePhoenix said:
Think about this, New York, Detroit, Cleveland, Miami, L.A., Atlanta, Boston and a few other large cities would then have the sole power to decide who would be leader over the rest of the country. This is unacceptable…..
That assumes that everyone in all of those cities would vote as one bloc, which is clearly not the case.

Why should I be discriminated against if I live in New York City? My vote counts less than the vote of someone from Barrow, Alaska.
 

F41

Active member
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
341
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well, I have to honestly say that I voted for Bush in the first election and my vote counted, I was living in Florida. And I voted for Bush in the second election and I was and now living in Ohio. The E.C. works for me I guess...
 

teacher

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
5,980
Reaction score
30
Location
Nomad.Got a couch,beer,meat,cute daughters,Batman
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Australianlibertarian said:
I take it that the Electoral College was designed to protect the minority rights of, smaller populated states. I.e to prevent more urban sates from dominating rural states?

Although because the American constitution is well defined, and in the US Senate, all states have equal numbers of senators, I don't see why America needs the electoral college.
Close but..
 

Attachments

M14 Shooter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
gwynn said:
The better solution, IMHO, is to have all states split thier electoral college votes. Even in the those states which always elect a certain party, that party rarely ( if ever ) gets enough votes to account for all seats in that state.

The current system is ridiculous. It's not the swing states that even decide things. It's the swing voters in the swing states, which is a very small minority of all Americans.
I think you will find that if you do this, nothing will change. I figured the results in the 2000 election in this manner, and GWB wound up winning by obe more EC vote than he actually did.

Recall, too, that each state would have to decide to do this, and at least two already do.

But, there's a deeper, more important reason for the EC -- the states, not the people, electe the President because the President is the head of State and Head of Government, not a representative of The People. The states are under no obligation whatsoever to even hold a Presidental election, and have the power to determine its slate of electors in any manner they chose.

So, what it comes down to is that the popular vote doesnt matter because the people dont elect the President; the people dont elect the President because the President isnt a representative of The People.
 

M14 Shooter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
This is a democracy; the areas of the country with the most people SHOULD have the most influence.
This is a Republic, and the President isnt the people's representative in the Federal government.

The People dont even have the right to vote for President - plainly, "democracy" was not part of the plan when the Constitution was written.

70% of the people in the country oppose the electoral college.
93% of statistics are made up on the spot.

The president is in charge of the entire country. As such, he should be elected by equal votes from everyone from all parts of the country.
The People are represented in the federal Governmnt bu Congress, not the President.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
M14 Shooter said:
This is a Republic, and the President isnt the people's representative in the Federal government.

The People dont even have the right to vote for President - plainly, "democracy" was not part of the plan when the Constitution was written.


93% of statistics are made up on the spot.


The People are represented in the federal Governmnt bu Congress, not the President.
Don't tell me how the system currently is; tell me WHY it should be that way. Your argument seems to be "We should keep the electoral college because we currently have the electoral college."
 

M14 Shooter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Kandahar said:
Don't tell me how the system currently is; tell me WHY it should be that way. Your argument seems to be "We should keep the electoral college because we currently have the electoral college."

I did.

1: The President doesnt represent the people - Congress does. Therefore the President doesnt need to be elected by the people as they already have a representative in the Fed Gvmnt

2: Being a Federal Republic, the states, as their own sovereign entity, need to have some say in the make-up of the federal government. Their role in this is the election of the Head of State/Head of Government.
 

Hornburger

Active member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
452
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ThePhoenix said:
Chill dude, you sound like a Democrat


Taking the E.C away is about one of the most undemocratic thing one can do to the people. I am a Federalist and believe that returning the power back to the individual states will in return give the power back to the people, and the E.C. is for for all the people of every state, and not to just a few, that is what democracy is, a fair voice of all the people, of all states. The only reason some dems and all libs want to take away the voice of the states is for their own political gain.
I wholeheartedly agree.

Anyway, what the founders wanted to do when they created the electoral college is to create a medium between the people and the government in order to prevent "mob rule". Look, not every American who votes exactly knows what he is talking about. However, most people in the electoral college are in the electoral college because they DO know what they are talking about. Mob rule, and taking away the electoral college, is, in my opinion, undemocratic.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
M14 Shooter said:
1: The President doesnt represent the people - Congress does.
I'm well aware that is the way the system currently works. It still doesn't answer the question of WHY it should be that way.

M14 Shooter said:
Therefore the President doesnt need to be elected by the people as they already have a representative in the Fed Gvmnt
So having another representative would be a bad thing...why?

M14 Shooter said:
2: Being a Federal Republic, the states, as their own sovereign entity, need to have some say in the make-up of the federal government. Their role in this is the election of the Head of State/Head of Government.
The people of the states elect Senators. Every state equal power in the Senate regardless of population. Now, why should "the states" have more influence over choosing the president than "the people" do?

Having a direct election for the head of state seems to work fine in every other democracy in the world.
 

M14 Shooter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Kandahar said:
I'm well aware that is the way the system currently works. It still doesn't answer the question of WHY it should be that way.
Its self-explanatory - the people are already represented.
Why should they have yet another representative?

So having another representative would be a bad thing...why?
Its unnecessary. The people are already represented; directly electing the President takes away the last expression of state sovereignty out of the Federal government (at which point, it is no longer a feneral government).

The people of the states elect Senators. Every state equal power in the Senate regardless of population.
The senate no longer represents the states, and as such, the states have no power in the Senate. Their last remaining federal power lies in the selection of the head of state.

Now, why should "the states" have more influence over choosing the president than "the people" do?
I've already answered this twice, in two different ways.

Having a direct election for the head of state seems to work fine in every other democracy in the world.
LOL
Like...The UK? Canada? Australia? New Zealand? Japan? Germany? Italy? Spain? Holland? Sweden? Norway?
LOL
 
Last edited:

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
M14 Shooter said:
Its self-explanatory - the people are already represented.
Why should they have yet another representative?
Because Congressman Smith doesn't set national foreign policy. Because Governor Jones has no control over the federal budget.

The commander-in-chief of the most powerful nation in the world should most definitely be elected by the people. Your statements indicate that you think they already have TOO MUCH power with the idea of voting for electors. I take it you would support having the 50 governors choose the president, with no accountability to any voters other than their OWN elections?

M14 Shooter said:
Its unnecessary. The people are already represented; directly electing the President takes away the last expression of state sovereignty out of the Federal government (at which point, it is no longer a feneral government).


The senate no longer represents the states, and as such, the states have no power in the Senate. Their last remaining federal power lies in the selection of the head of state.
Oh really, and how is that? How is the Senate no longer representative of the states? And don't give me your personal opinion of fleeting current events, tell me how it's fundamentally non-representative.

M14 Shooter said:
The UK? Canada? Australia? New Zealand? Japan? Germany? Italy? Spain? Holland? Sweden? Norway?
LOL
To clarify: Direct elections work fine in every country in the world that has direct elections. Furthermore, none of those countries you mentioned have any electoral process as stupid as the electoral college.
 
Last edited:

M14 Shooter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Kandahar said:
Because Congressman Smith doesn't set national foreign policy. Because Governor Jones has no control over the federal budget.
And...?
What makes you think they are supposed to? Or should?

The commander-in-chief of the most powerful nation in the world should most definitely be elected by the people.
Wonderful statement, if repetitive.
Why?

Your statements indicate that you think they already have TOO MUCH power with the idea of voting for electors. I take it you would support having the 50 governors choose the president, with no accountability to any voters other than their OWN elections?
States can choose their electors any way they want -- if a state decides to let the governor pick, then that state has every right to do so.
I see no problem with that whatsoever. Remember that the states are sovereign and that the Fed Gvmnt exists at their pleasure -- therefore the states must have --some-- say in the composition of the Fed Gvmnt.

Oh really, and how is that? How is the Senate no longer representative of the states?
The Senate is elected by the people, not the state legislatures, and as such, Senators answer to the people and not the states.
Therefore the Semate no longer represents the states.

And don't give me your personal opinion of fleeting current events, tell me how it's fundamentally non-representative.
BTDT.

To clarify: Direct elections work fine in every country in the world that has direct elections.
LOL

Furthermore, none of those countries you mentioned have any electoral process as stupid as the electoral college.
Youre right - in that list, all but Germany and Italy, the heads of state are hereditary monarchs.
In Germany and Italy, the Heads of state are elected by the legislature (or similar body)
 

CaliNORML

Active member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
250
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Presidential Lottery: The New Reality Series

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a citizen of one of the far western states here in California, I am tired of feeling that my vote in the Presidential Election every four years does not count. Lets face it, nowadays it is the president who sets the National Agenda after all deciding on the policies and laws for the entire nation. Other residents of States such as Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska and Hawaii are all in the same frame of mind, believe me. Left out of the influencing thePresidential vote, us poor Western colonies are constintly dragged into the Supreme Court at a greater pace than most eastern states in order to defend our state laws. How this mis-balance of checks and balances occured is now a fact of goverment, unfair yet true. In light of all this I propose that come election time America livens things up a bit more, here is my plan.

I believe that we should keep the electorial college system; only wait untill EVERY state has tallied their votes, then it's showtime Hollywood style. Imagine onstage are the two candidates standing at respective podiums. Bright lights and a live audience add to the level of excitment as the time draws near to reveal which party will secure the seat setting the moral tone for the nation over the next four years. Onstage behind them a Vanna White look-a-like gestures towards a spinning bingo cage with 50 balls churning within. Each ball contains a state and the number of votes represented by the state. I also believe a President should be able to think on thier feet, by tossing in a pop quiz question from the Senate and Congresinal Representives along the way could be added in as an incentive to the candidates. The chance for another single electoral vote for the correct answer is one possibility, the list is endless.

Behind the opponets there can be a lighted scoreboard. The respective tallies in blue or red lights glowing behind the next possible President. A small section across the bottom could be added, keeping track of the optional answers to the questions asked by the states. Making it possible California could be chosen from the hopper first this year. Maybe Rhode Island will be picked adding to one candidates score, this method allows for equality in the process, unlike today where temporality and physicality are major factors to the electoral process. Democracy in vote counting should not be linked to the time zone or the physical location of any state withing a nation. Every state should have the opportunity to be an active participant in the process of goverment. Choosing to live the U.S.A. not only east of the Mississippi should not negate anyones vote in a true democracy. Elections drawn out in this method allows democratic voices to be heard not to only from the east, but from the west as well. This process injects the element of the unknown, causing politicians to spread thier promises Nationwide. Key turning numbers will no longer be held by a certain few select states as in current electorical voting methods today.

Beside what better reality T.V. could be programed? Think of the ratings this would generate, not to mention some sembalance of a true Democratic process once agin on American soil. "Who will be your next President America?" drawn in this fashion states out west may actually start to feel that their votes do count, where as now it is painfully obvious that they do not.

KMS
 

CaliNORML

Active member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
250
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Presidential Lottery: The New Reality Series

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a citizen of one of the far western states here in California, I am tired of feeling that my vote in the Presidential Election every four years does not count. Lets face it, nowadays it is the president who sets the National Agenda after all deciding on the policies and laws for the entire nation. Other residents of States such as Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska and Hawaii are all in the same frame of mind, believe me. Left out of the influencing thePresidential vote, us poor Western colonies are constintly dragged into the Supreme Court at a greater pace than most eastern states in order to defend our state laws. How this mis-balance of checks and balances occured is now a fact of goverment, unfair yet true. In light of all this I propose that come election time America livens things up a bit more, here is my plan.

I believe that we should keep the electorial college system; only wait untill EVERY state has tallied their votes, then it's showtime Hollywood style. Imagine onstage are the two candidates standing at respective podiums. Bright lights and a live audience add to the level of excitment as the time draws near to reveal which party will secure the seat setting the moral tone for the nation over the next four years. Onstage behind them a Vanna White look-a-like gestures towards a spinning bingo cage with 50 balls churning within. Each ball contains a state and the number of votes represented by the state. I also believe a President should be able to think on thier feet, by tossing in a pop quiz question from the Senate and Congresinal Representives along the way could be added in as an incentive to the candidates. The chance for another single electoral vote for the correct answer is one possibility, the list is endless.

Behind the opponets there can be a lighted scoreboard. The respective tallies in blue or red lights glowing behind the next possible President. A small section across the bottom could be added, keeping track of the optional answers to the questions asked by the states. Making it possible California could be chosen from the hopper first this year. Maybe Rhode Island will be picked adding to one candidates score, this method allows for equality in the process, unlike today where temporality and physicality are major factors to the electoral process. Democracy in vote counting should not be linked to the time zone or the physical location of any state withing a nation. Every state should have the opportunity to be an active participant in the process of goverment. Choosing to live the U.S.A. not only east of the Mississippi should not negate anyones vote in a true democracy. Elections drawn out in this method allows democratic voices to be heard not to only from the east, but from the west as well. This process injects the element of the unknown, causing politicians to spread thier promises Nationwide. Key turning numbers will no longer be held by a certain few select states as in current electorical voting methods today.

Beside what better reality T.V. could be programed? Think of the ratings this would generate, not to mention some sembalance of a true Democratic process once agin on American soil. "Who will be your next President America?" drawn in this fashion states out west may actually start to feel that their votes do count, where as now it is painfully obvious that they do not.

KMS
 

MrAchilles

New member
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Now obviously i agree with M14 Shooter but i have to make a correction. Why are you and Kandahar talking about the President being a representative of the people? The House and the Senate are representatives of the people, the President doesn't and is not supposed to be. He/She is supposed to represent the best interest of the country. Representing the people has nothing to do with the Electoral College. Further more Kandahar this country is a democracy. I know it feels like it and even though you may want it to be (being that you're a federalist and all), this country is not a republic and is not supposed to be. For decades upon decades this country has prided itself on being a democracy, and as such it should elect it's officials by popular vote. Of course you could bring up all the revolts that's happened in eastern Europe and the rest of the world, but remember- they don't know what they're doing. America does and there will not be revolt. It will work. Trust me
 
Top Bottom