electoral college? who needs it!

[MrAchilles]

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 M14 Shooter 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

 

[Kandahar]

And...?
What makes you think they are supposed to? Or should?

Nothing...but if you're telling me that the only two people in charge of the ENTIRE COUNTRY shouldn't be accountable to the voters, you might want to explain why not. You haven't done this other than to list cliches about the president not "representing the people."

We elect governors, so why not presidents? Or would you support an electoral college of counties to elect governors?

Wonderful statement, if repetitive.
Why?

Because then Congress will be the only branch of government accountable to the voters (actually, only the House of Representatives if we also took your suggestion about restoring appointment of Senators). So of the three branches of the federal government, voters will only be allowed to elect one-half of one branch? Do you really think that's enough accountability? If the federal government ****s up, no one will ever be held accountable since the voters always think that their own congressman is a saint, and their own congressman most likely didn't have anything to do with the mistakes of the executive anyway.

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.

I'm all in favor of states' rights, but there is a more important concept: individual rights. The president is LEADER OF THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.

If we let the 50 governors pick the President and the state legislatures pick the Senate, the only people who will ever be held accountable to the voters are those state officials...and by then it's too late, barring the impeachment of federal officials.

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.

The same people are eligible to vote for a Senator, as are able to vote for a legislator to appoint the Senator.

LOL

I assume that's your way of conceding defeat on that point. Moving on...

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)

Do the monarchs in any of those countries have any power whatsoever? No. So stop wasting time with this red herring.

Why are you even on this tangent? The point is that direct election of the president has not doomed federalism or democracy anywhere it has been used. Citing countries where direct election is not used is not relevant.

 

[Kandahar]

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.

A fine sentiment, but the same is true of ALL elected officials. It doesn't change the fact that the president should be accountable to the people while acting in the country's best interest.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nothing...but if you're telling me that the only two people in charge of the ENTIRE COUNTRY shouldn't be accountable to the voters, you might want to explain why not. You haven't done this other than to list cliches about the president not "representing the people."

And thats all I really need. There's nothing inherent to the idea of democracy or federalism or republicianism that required that the people vote for/on everything, including the leaders of the country.

Never mind the fact that you seem to think that the peoples' represntatives (that is, Congress) doesnt have any power over what the President does. This is, of course., untrue.

Ans since you;re the one that wants to change the Constitution, then the burdern of proof is on you - why doesnt the current system work, and why, other than your cliche about the leader of the country being directly responsible to the voters, should this change?

We elect governors, so why not presidents? Or would you support an electoral college of counties to elect governors?

States elect covernors however they want; states are not an amalgamation of sovereign counties arranged into a federal republic. Your analogy isnt sound.

Because then Congress will be the only branch of government accountable to the voters (actually, only the House of Representatives if we also took your suggestion about restoring appointment of Senators).

1- I didnt suggest that we repeal the 17th amendmsne t(though I think we should)
2- So what?

So of the three branches of the federal government, voters will only be allowed to elect one-half of one branch? Do you really think that's enough accountability?
Yes.
Why do you think it isnt? The House has a LOT of power...
And as long as we're at it - why arent you arguing that SCOTUS justices be elected as well? Dont all of your arguments apply to them, too?

If the federal government ****s up, no one will ever be held accountable since the voters always think that their own congressman is a saint, and their own congressman most likely didn't have anything to do with the mistakes of the executive anyway.

I think you need to look at the 1994 election.
There are others with similar circumstances and result, but 1994 is the most recent.

I'm all in favor of states' rights, but there is a more important concept: individual rights. The president is LEADER OF THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.

He's the head of state and the head of government.
Somehwere in there, the states have to have some say in the choosing of same. Where do you suggest this happens, should the EC be dropped?

If we let the 50 governors pick the President and the state legislatures pick the Senate, the only people who will ever be held accountable to the voters are those state officials...

And the House. The House has a lot of power.

I assume that's your way of conceding defeat on that point. Moving on...

No, its my way of saying 'Gee, that was convenient'.
Just how many democracies have a direct election of the Head if State?
What % of democracies is that?
Why is said % so low...?

Do the monarchs in any of those countries have any power whatsoever? No. So stop wasting time with this red herring.Why are you even on this tangent?

LOL
YOU brought up the idea of democracies with the direct election of the head of state. Obviously this concept isnt as pervasive as you would like to think, nor is it necessary for a cdemocracy to function in an effective manner.
LOL

 

[teacher]

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."

Just another one...

 

[Russell Hammond]

On the larger issue, we already have one body that provides an inordinate amount of weight to the concerns of smaller states: CONGRESS. But, if we look at it a little more broadly, it makes more sense to allow small states to have a bigger say in a legislative body where each Representative or Senator is elected primarily to represent the interests of his or her home State or District.

It makes much less sense when we are talking about the President, who represents every American. And in a direct sense, the Presidential Election is the only election where we accord more weight to the votes of some citizens than the votes of others. It is high time that we eliminate the Electoral College.

 

[FireUltra 98]

I have to agree with many of the posts written by M14 here. We set this country up as a Federal Republic and states have "equal" standing in their representation in the federal governement. The House is set up to capture population demographics.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

He thinks he should be.
I, obviously, and for the reasons you state, disagree.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I mean, considering how many people live in New York and California and Texas, wouldn't it just make more sense to have it determined by the popular vote?

You;re addressing the problem with your suggestion.
In a direct election, the President would be decided by just a few cities across the country.

This is, of course, what the Democrats want, and why they want to get rid of the EC. When you;re desperate...

But, lets consider:
In the 2000 election, GWB was elected, even though he lost the "popular vote" by 500k.
The election was decided by ~650 votes in FL because FL's 25 electoral votes were what mattered.

We all know the problems from FL.

Had there been no EC, we would have seen the same thing in all 50 states.

Arent we glad -that- didn't happen?

 

[FireUltra 98]

But, lets consider:
In the 2000 election, GWB was elected, even though he lost the "popular vote" by 500k.
The election was decided by ~650 votes in FL because FL's 25 electoral votes were what mattered.

We all know the problems from FL.

Had there been no EC, we would have seen the same thing in all 50 states.

Arent we glad -that- didn't happen?

Again, excellent point. A nationwide Florida would have led us into another Civil War.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It makes much less sense when we are talking about the President, who represents every American.

But, he doesnt.
The only time he 'represents' anything is when he deals with people abroad, at which time he is representing the United States.

And in a direct sense, the Presidential Election is the only election where we accord more weight to the votes of some citizens than the votes of others.

But, we dont.
We accord each state more represntation in the EC based on population, but this doesnt translate to representing each individual citizen more or less than others -- because the people arent voting for President, they're voting for their state's electors. As such, their votes are all 1:1 to one another.

 

[XShipRider]

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.

Popular vote does matter, just not to the degree which you would like.
Yes, you must win a certain number of states or electoral votes to win.
This was by grand design of the founding fathers. I personally think they
were a heck of a lot smarter than the average voter then and also
tried to level the playing field across the various states.

The electoral college exists to keep a few of the most populous cities
and states from winning elections. If it did not exist states with major
population centers would determine the President every single election.
It levels the playing field with regard to the less populous states. It makes
it allowable to lose a state like California or New York and still win the
election.

There are those who talk about the "will of the people" but disregard 90%
of the country's opinion, wants or needs. The electoral college allows
for winning the popular vote by a slim margin but not winning the office.
The system takes into account what would be over-representation in the
voting process of places like California and New York.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So what you're saying is that it's better cause it's easier?

No, I'm saying that in the case of the 2000 election, it saved the election system.

Like it's easy enough in Texas and New York cause they can just count enough to know who won, because it's typically by a huge margin in those states, but they'd have to count all of the votes if it was based on popular results?

Exactly.
You think FL/2000 shook peoples' confidence in the system? Imagine 50 of them, all going on at the same time.

But on the thing where a few cities end up deciding the election, what do you think goes on now? They go to swing areas in swing states, and that's where they spend all of their time.

Thats whats happened recently, because the election shave ben close. It hasnt always been like that and it wont always be like that in the future.

A slightly off topic thing that I noticed though, about the actual nature of our democracy. I have a buddy who grew up in China, and just moved here four years ago. When I asked him how things were different politically here than there, he said he didn't even really notice one, just we have two parties seemingly serving the same purpose instead of one.

This is more or less true.
There is little difference between the GOP and Dems as a whole, and both have been sliding to the left for quite some time.

 

[Connecticutter]

I think that the Electoral College was set up to balance the power of the free states and the slave states. One could argue that it was a neccessary compromise because without it we couldn't have gotten all 13 states to ratify the constitution.

Nowaday, we might feel better about ourselves if we change over to the popular vote. Of course, this would either have to be done through a constitutional ammendment or through an agreement amoung the 50 states to choose electors based upon the national totals.

I don't think it would make much of a difference in th outcome of the elections. In 2000, Bush must have spent millions of dollars just to get a couple hundred votes in Florida. If we had a popular vote, he could have used that money to do a huge get out the vote drive in Texas. This probably would have won him the popular vote.

 

[Kandahar]

You;re addressing the problem with your suggestion.
In a direct election, the President would be decided by just a few cities across the country.

This is, of course, what the Democrats want, and why they want to get rid of the EC. When you;re desperate...

It's ridiculous to assert that wanting the people to have more say in their government is a partisan tactic. Debates over the electoral college have existed since the founding of the country, not just in the last five years.

But, lets consider:
In the 2000 election, GWB was elected, even though he lost the "popular vote" by 500k.
The election was decided by ~650 votes in FL because FL's 25 electoral votes were what mattered.

We all know the problems from FL.

Had there been no EC, we would have seen the same thing in all 50 states.

Arent we glad -that- didn't happen?

Actually, the same thing would NOT have happened in all 50 states, because Gore's margin of victory (while slim) would have been sufficiently outside the realm of voting irregularities. In fact, it is unlikely that a national election would EVER occur where the margin of victory was only a few hundred or few thousand votes, simply because the number of voters nationwide is so much larger than the number of voters in any particular state.

 

[Connecticutter]

It's ridiculous to assert that wanting the people to have more say in their government is a partisan tactic. Debates over the electoral college have existed since the founding of the country, not just in the last five years.

Yep, and I don't think that the electoral college neccesarily favors the republicans. What about the 40 to 50% of people who voted republican in California, New York, Pennsylvenia, Michigan, New England, and elsewhere? While before, they're whole state goes democratic, they are now a much more powerful block.

Of course, you can say the same with OH and FL, but there are more large states that have voted democratic.

 

[Russell Hammond]

But, [the President] doesnt.
The only time he 'represents' anything is when he deals with people abroad, at which time he is representing the United States.

Semantics. Who lives in the United States? The people. So if the President is representing the United States, he is also representing the people of the United States.

But, we dont.
We accord each state more represntation in the EC based on population, but this doesnt translate to representing each individual citizen more or less than others -- because the people arent voting for President, they're voting for their state's electors. As such, their votes are all 1:1 to one another.

That's a bunch of b.s. In substance, a Montanan has a much greater say in who becomes President than a Californian. I know how the system technically works, but we are talking about what it really means.

Note: I recognize that to rid ourselves of the Electoral College, we would most likely need to pass a Constitutional Amendment.

 

[Russell Hammond]

You;re addressing the problem with your suggestion.
In a direct election, the President would be decided by just a few cities across the country.

It's already that way. New York State is always blue solely because of New York City.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's ridiculous to assert that wanting the people to have more say in their government is a partisan tactic.

You're confusing the argument they make with their objective.
Their objectiove is to change the system to better their chances of a win; their argument merely dupes people into supporting them.

Debates over the electoral college have existed since the founding of the country, not just in the last five years.

True, but outside of poli-sci circles, youdidnt hear anything about it until the 2000 election, from Democrats.

Actually, the same thing would NOT have happened in all 50 states, because Gore's margin of victory (while slim) would have been sufficiently outside the realm of voting irregularities.

Gore "won" by 500k votes, out of almost 100M.
Thats MORE than close enough to recount every state looking for every last vote -- see, w/o the EC, there is no 'winner' in a state and therefore there's nothing to keep anyone from recounting.

In fact, it is unlikely that a national election would EVER occur where the margin of victory was only a few hundred or few thousand votes, simply because the number of voters nationwide is so much larger than the number of voters in any particular state

It happened in 2000.
if you get rid of the EC, "margin of victory" in any given state is meaningless.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Semantics. Who lives in the United States? The people

No... the "United States" are just that -- the United States.
He represents the state as head of state and the government as head of government. In this role, he does not represent the people

Understand that the states are, themselves, a sovereign entity seperate from that of the people.

That's a bunch of b.s. In substance, a Montanan has a much greater say in who becomes President than a Californian.

No, he doesnt.
He doesnt have ANY say, except that his state lets him vote for its eelctors; in that his vote is equal to everyone elses.

Note: I recognize that to rid ourselves of the Electoral College, we would most likely need to pass a Constitutional Amendment.

Correct.

 

[Kandahar]

You're confusing the argument they make with their objective.
Their objectiove is to change the system to better their chances of a win; their argument merely dupes people into supporting them.


True, but outside of poli-sci circles, youdidnt hear anything about it until the 2000 election, from Democrats.

What you imagine their motives to be are of little relevance to the substance of the argument.

Gore "won" by 500k votes, out of almost 100M.
Thats MORE than close enough to recount every state looking for every last vote

No, it's really not. It's a slim margin of victory to be sure, but it's not so close that it justifies counting every vote again.

A 500k margin means that the losing candidate would have to pick up an additional 10,000 votes in every state (without adjusting for population). Now keep in mind that even in a big state like Florida, the margin that Bush/Gore fought over in 2000 was less than one-tenth of that. In smaller states it would be downright impossible to pick up 10,000 extra votes (and remember, the losing candidate would have to do it in EVERY state).

Of course, we can distribute that 500k margin by population rather than by state. In that case, it might be easier to get the extra votes required from the small states...but it would mean a 30,000 vote pickup was necessary in Florida, which I'm sure you would agree is next to impossible.

So any way that a candidate tries to find 500,000 extra votes to erase his opponent's margin of victory, it is simply mathematically ridiculous.

If an election were decided by only 50,000 votes nationwide, it would be more possible (although still very unlikely). But that is much less likely to ever happen.

-- see, w/o the EC, there is no 'winner' in a state and therefore there's nothing to keep anyone from recounting.

The various states would still be in charge of delivering the election results from their state in the form of the popular vote. They could recount or not recount in accordance with whatever state laws they had, but the necessity of doing so would be greatly reduced since it's unlikely that a national election result with millions of votes could be changed by a simple recount.

It happened in 2000.

No it didn't. The 2000 election came down to a few hundred votes in ONE STATE. Having a NATIONAL election come down to a few hundred or a few thousand votes IN THE ENTIRE COUNRY is extremely unlikely, statistically.

if you get rid of the EC, "margin of victory" in any given state is meaningless.

And the problem with this is...?

 

[M14 Shooter]

What you imagine their motives to be are of little relevance to the substance of the argument.

Thats the point - there isnt any, except to change the nature of elections.

No, it's really not. It's a slim margin of victory to be sure, but it's not so close that it justifies counting every vote again.

According to you.
They would argue otherwise.. Its a mere 0.5% -- and in fact, it may automatically trigger a recount as thats the margin that triggers such a thing in several states.

Recall that the Kerry Campaign was this > || close to demanding recounts in Ohio with a 140,000 vote margin. Had the margin been 100k or so, they may very well have gone for it.

 

[Kandahar]

Thats the point - there isnt any, except to change the nature of elections.

So just because some people would supposedly benefit politically from this change, it automatically makes their argument wrong?

I think getting rid of the electoral college would be a wash, politically, or at best it would be a VERY small help to the Democrats. Recall that in 2004 the Democrats fared significantly better with the EC than they would have without it; if 140,000 voters in Ohio had changed their minds, Kerry would be president, even though he would've still lost the popular vote by more than 2%.

According to you.
They would argue otherwise.. Its a mere 0.5% -- and in fact, it may automatically trigger a recount as thats the margin that triggers such a thing in several states.

Like I said, getting rid of the EC wouldn't change the fact that individual states would still set their own laws regarding when ballots are recounted.

Recall that the Kerry Campaign was this > || close to demanding recounts in Ohio with a 140,000 vote margin.

That's nothing more than speculation.

Had the margin been 100k or so, they may very well have gone for it.

100k votes in Ohio alone is well outside the realm of being able to change the outcome with a recount. Remember that in 2000 in Florida, Al Gore was only able to shift a few hundred extra votes into his column.

But you're still talking about a single state. The chances of a NATIONAL election being that close are very slim.

 

[Russell Hammond]

No... the "United States" are just that -- the United States.
He represents the state as head of state and the government as head of government. In this role, he does not represent the people

Understand that the states are, themselves, a sovereign entity seperate from that of the people.

No, he doesnt.
He doesnt have ANY say, except that his state lets him vote for its eelctors; in that his vote is equal to everyone elses.

I understand how our country is structured. My argument is that if you look at the substance, some people have more voting power than others. I am not alleging that this unfair system could be overturned, but I would support an Amendment. While we have not seen a legal change, clearly the role of the Executive has shifted over time from a federal representative of the interests of the 50 states to a federal representative of the interests of the people of the 50 states.

But as far as the argument that, "oh people only care because of Gore", goes... so what? People did not start talking about changing the citizenship rules for the President until Schwarzeneger became a political figure. Does that affect whether an Amendment to allow longtime citizens to become President is a good idea?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So just because some people would supposedly benefit politically from this change, it automatically makes their argument wrong?

not necesarily.
it does, however, show tha their argument is made in bad faith.
We should change the Constitution when one side argues in bad faith?

Recall that in 2004 the Democrats fared significantly better with the EC than they would have without it; if 140,000 voters in Ohio had changed their minds, Kerry would be president, even though he would've still lost the popular vote by more than 2%.

At which point the whining about the EC would stop.

Like I said, getting rid of the EC wouldn't change the fact that individual states would still set their own laws regarding when ballots are recounted.

Except that the election eould no longer be a state election, it would be a federal election, and since there is nothing to "win" at the state level, there is no "winner" or "loser".

That's nothing more than speculation.

BS. Jiohn Edwards was up all night argung that they should go for a recount. Kerry decided the margin was too large.

100k votes in Ohio alone is well outside the realm of being able to change the outcome with a recount. Remember that in 2000 in Florida, Al Gore was only able to shift a few hundred extra votes into his column.

It was right at the threshhold.
100K in TX? CA? NY? More than close enough.

But you're still talking about a single state. The chances of a NATIONAL election being that close are very slim.

Remember state totals dont matter any more, only the overall total.
It doesnt matter where the votes to change the overall total come from, so there's no reason to NOT recounr EVERY state.