MrAchilles
New member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2005
- Messages
- 29
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- Chicago
- 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
You catch on quick!...:2wave: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?
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: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."
True statement....NOW...see above...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.
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: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.
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 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.
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...
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...
cnredd said:No offense, but this sounds insulting to the places of less dense populations..."obscure interests"?
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:
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...
cnredd said:I have no idea where you get this claim...All state's votes are equal.
cnredd said:What you are referring to; more representation for more dense populations...is already being done in the House of the representatives...
Chill dude, you sound like a DemocratMrAchilles 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.
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.
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.
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.
ThePhoenix said:They would then only have to cater to the large cities and not concern themselves with the rest of the nation.
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.
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…..
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..
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.
This is a Republic, and the President isnt the people's representative in the Federal government.This is a democracy; the areas of the country with the most people SHOULD have the most influence.
93% of statistics are made up on the spot.70% of the people in the country oppose the electoral college.
The People are represented in the federal Governmnt bu Congress, not the President.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.
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.
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 wholeheartedly agree.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.
M14 Shooter said:1: The President doesnt represent the people - Congress does.
M14 Shooter said:Therefore the President doesnt need to be elected by the people as they already have a representative in the Fed Gvmnt
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.
Its self-explanatory - the people are already represented.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 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).So having another representative would be a bad thing...why?
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.The people of the states elect Senators. Every state equal power in the Senate regardless of population.
I've already answered this twice, in two different ways.Now, why should "the states" have more influence over choosing the president than "the people" do?
LOLHaving a direct election for the head of state seems to work fine in every other democracy in the world.
M14 Shooter said:Its self-explanatory - the people are already represented.
Why should they have yet another representative?
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.
M14 Shooter said:The UK? Canada? Australia? New Zealand? Japan? Germany? Italy? Spain? Holland? Sweden? Norway?
LOL
And...?Kandahar said:Because Congressman Smith doesn't set national foreign policy. Because Governor Jones has no control over the federal budget.
Wonderful statement, if repetitive.The commander-in-chief of the most powerful nation in the world should most definitely be elected by the people.
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.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?
The Senate is elected by the people, not the state legislatures, and as such, Senators answer to the people and not the states.Oh really, and how is that? How is the Senate no longer representative of the states?
BTDT.And don't give me your personal opinion of fleeting current events, tell me how it's fundamentally non-representative.
LOLTo clarify: Direct elections work fine in every country in the world that has direct elections.
Youre right - in that list, all but Germany and Italy, the heads of state are hereditary monarchs.Furthermore, none of those countries you mentioned have any electoral process as stupid as the electoral college.
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?