Should America get rid of the Electoral College

[Captain Adverse]

I abhor true democratic rule. My preference of for the most representative possible (smallest population sampling reasonably attainable)...

How is that democratic? While we are a "republic" it is one based upon democratic principles. The Founding Father's wanted the people to have a say in who "ruled" the nation, otherwise they would have given Congress the authority you are suggesting when they proposed the final draft of the Constitution for ratification.

One reason for the Electoral College was to prevent demagogues from gaining and keeping the office; the other was to allow citizens to vote for a local representative to elect their choice at the College. The electors used to actually run for office, and campaign on a platform solely consisting on which candidate they would vote for if elected to the College. This allowed for local debate and town hall votes. It was very much geared towards citizen participation.

Then our nation just got too big, and it became just another pro-forma barrier to the popular election of the President. There's no valid reason not to let the people vote for the office directly.

 

[thinkforyoursel]

How is that democratic? While we are a "republic" it is one based upon democratic principles. The Founding Father's wanted the people to have a say in who "ruled" the nation, otherwise they would have given Congress the authority you are suggesting when they proposed the final draft of the Constitution for ratification.

One reason for the Electoral College was to prevent demagogues from gaining and keeping the office; the other was to allow citizens to vote for a local representative to elect their choice at the College. The electors used to actually run for office, and campaign on a platform solely consisting on which candidate they would vote for if elected to the College. This allowed for local debate and town hall votes. It was very much geared towards citizen participation.

Then our nation just got too big, and it became just another pro-forma barrier to the popular election of the President. There's no valid reason not to let the people vote for the office directly.

Oh good grief ...here we go again about these ..."founding fathers".. :roll:

These perfect men who descended from haven ...craft the constitution and went back up in the sky. And because they spoke ....nobody must ever counter their talk...ever.

Well buddy...unlike you ....I'm not really impressed with ...SLAVE OWNERS.

And getting rid of the electoral college system is the perfect way to allow the will of the people to prevail.

The funny thing ...only conservatives are afraid of ..."The will of the people"!!

 

[polgara]

It's much harder to sustain any type campaign in 435 districts than it is in a minority of swing States...

Since the House is more representative of the people by Constitution wording, it does make sense that the people would be more aptly represented if the districts were used to determine who won the Presidency, instead of the winner- take- all Electoral College. It will never happen, but it does seem more fair. It probably would encourage greater voter turn out, too, since people would feel their vote counted, which many don't believe today! :twocents:

 

[ttwtt78640]

Well ..like I guessed.

Excuses after excuses .... and all sorts of ideological rationale .....but in the end the most frightening thing today to conservatives ...is actually...the will of the people!!

The majority of the people are concentrated in only a few large urban areas. In a pure democracy they would win on all counts.

 

[Jack Hays]

It's much harder to sustain any type campaign in 435 districts than it is in a minority of swing States...

Their votes would not depend on a campaign.

 

[polgara]

Hmm. The most important states last time were Ohio, Virginia, Florida and Colorado.eace

Maybe that's because we aren't California, New York, or Illinois, and they really aren't sure how we might vote? :lamo:

 

[ttwtt78640]

Since the House is more representative of the people by Constitution wording, it does make sense that the people would be more aptly represented if the districts were used to determine who won the Presidency, instead of the winner- take- all Electoral College. It will never happen, but it does seem more fair. It probably would encourage greater voter turn out, too, since people would feel their vote counted, which many don't believe today! :twocents:

Some states (like Maine, Nebraska and soon maybe even Pennsylvania) have proportional representation of their delgates/electors, a system which I prefer.

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/whatispr2.htm

The College try: Changes in Electoral College scheme could dramatically affect outcome of presidential ballots

 

[StringBean]

If I understand it correctly, the founding fathers were mostly paternalists who intentionally sought to limit the power of the people by only allowing them to elect Congressmen and having these Congressmen directly appoint senators.

I can see both sides: the uninformed masses electing senators as well might lead to erratic actors in Congress, but could also disrupt the "good-ole-boy" system that inevitably violates much of the will of the people.

Ultimately, it is simply a matter of a well-informed citizenry electing good human beings who will govern in good faith. In this regard, either system is flawed.

 

[Jack Hays]

If I understand it correctly, the founding fathers were mostly paternalists who intentionally sought to limit the power of the people by only allowing them to elect Congressmen and having these Congressmen directly appoint senators.

I can see both sides: the uninformed masses electing senators as well might lead to erratic actors in Congress, but could also disrupt the "good-ole-boy" system that inevitably violates much of the will of the people.

Ultimately, it is simply a matter of a well-informed citizenry electing good human beings who will govern in good faith. In this regard, either system is flawed.

State governments appointed Senators.

 

[StringBean]

State governments appointed Senators.

Well then, I guess it comes down to who you trust. In Revolutionary times, I might have been more willing to play along with their line of thinking...

 

[Captain Adverse]

Oh good grief ...here we go again about these ..."founding fathers".. :roll:

These perfect men who descended from haven ...craft the constitution and went back up in the sky. And because they spoke ....nobody must ever counter their talk...ever.

Well buddy...unlike you ....I'm not really impressed with ...SLAVE OWNERS.

And getting rid of the electoral college system is the perfect way to allow the will of the people to prevail.

The funny thing ...only conservatives are afraid of ..."The will of the people"!!

I'm sorry, did you MISS my point? I am arguing for DIRECT ELECTIONS without the need for an Electoral College. I was addressing a member who was willing to eliminate the College only if Congress took over the job and got to select a President. I was explaining how the College came about and why we don't need it anymore.

Follow the chain of argument, and read before you jump the gun.

 

[thinkforyoursel]

I'm sorry, did you MISS my point? I am arguing for DIRECT ELECTIONS without the need for an Electoral College. I was addressing a member who was willing to eliminate the College only if Congress took over the job and got to select a President. I was explaining how the College came about and why we don't need it anymore.

Follow the chain of argument, and read before you jump the gun.

Stop talking about these twisted and re-written history. The point is you're here today ...intelligent enough to see what's best for the country.
You just play into the hands of the stagnation that prevails the people on the right when you talk about "founding fathers".
One-man...one vote ....is very very simple stuff.
And that's what you'll get ,,,doing away with this sham called the electoral college.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Stop talking about these twisted and re-written history. The point is you're here today ...intelligent enough to see what's best for the country.
You just play into the hands of the stagnation that prevails the people on the right when you talk about "founding fathers".
One-man...one vote ....is very very simple stuff.
And that's what you'll get ,,,doing away with this sham called the electoral college.

I guess you don't realize I have a graduate degree in American Revolutionary History, with a minor in the American West. Don't lecture people about how they should present their arguments. Focus on your own presentation.

You made a mistake because you were too intent on ranting and did not take time to find out if you were ranting at the right person. Not even an admission you screwed up, much less an apology for doing so eh?

I suggest you start reading for content, and perhaps also back through the prior posted conversations before you jump on your soapbox with the wrong person.

 

[thinkforyoursel]

I guess you don't realize I have a graduate degree in American Revolutionary History, with a minor in the American West. Don't lecture people about how they should present their arguments. Focus on your own presentation.

You made a mistake because you were too intent on ranting and did not take time to find out if you were ranting at the right person. Not even an admission you screwed up, much less an apology for doing so eh?

I suggest you start reading for content, and perhaps also back through the prior posted conversations before you jump on your soapbox with the wrong person.

You and I won't be around to see it .....but in a few more decades kids will sit in class to learn about a great American president who ....SAVED IRAQ. That President will be ....George Bush.
The point is ...you may be scholarly in learning this history ....but you're really only learning white-washed ...almost made for movie account of the past.
Understand now why I have very little patient when I hear the words ...founding fathers?

Mao Zedong...Fidel Castro for example ....are skillfully painted as evil people by American ...revisionist historians. I don't need to read any book to realize what happened. I can easily draw inference from what I see today and extrapolate to fully understand what's went on ...and in my view those people were great leaders.

The thing is bud ....you have a brain ...use it ...stop trying to believe that men running around raping, enslaving ..plundering and looting is smarter than you......"think-for-your-self!! :2wave:

 

[StringBean]

...Fidel Castro's regime executed thousands of innocent people who disagreed with him...

...Mao Zedong is responsible for the deaths of millions when his regime took control of all the farmland and created a massive famine...

...And these are the leaders you revere while trashing the founding fathers as evil slave-owners?

Your sense of relative moralism needs some heavy scrutiny--my guess is you are young with a very naive sense of history.

 

[thinkforyoursel]

...Fidel Castro's regime executed thousands of innocent people who disagreed with him...

...Mao Zedong is responsible for the deaths of millions when his regime took control of all the farmland and created a massive famine...

...And these are the leaders you revere while trashing the founding fathers as evil slave-owners?

Your sense of relative moralism needs some heavy scrutiny--my guess is you are young with a very naive sense of history.

Groan....don't tell me ...you too read the white-washed history books written by American historians ...didn't you? :doh

What can I say ...but point out that because the words are in print ...doesn't necessarily make it true .....again I recommend that you try to ..."THINK - FOR - YOUR - SELF".

 

[Perotista]

no, in fact we need to go back to true republican government, of divided power.

repeal the 17th

democracy is the most vile form of government--james madison

I'm with you on that.

 

[washunut]

So you would replace the electoral college with a partisan vote by members of Congress? Aside from giving Congress tremendous power over the other two branches (by effectively controlling two of the three) how could you possibly believe that could be representative of the will of the people?

How does allowing direct voting of the President let "some areas of the country overwhelm the remainder by shear ideology?" You don't think that by limiting it to Congress you wouldn't be allowing whichever party happened to control it to overwhelm the remainder of the country by shear ideology?

There is no way in hell I would ever consider allowing those whores in Congress, already bought and paid for by powerful special interests, to also control who filled the Executive Office. The President is the guiding figure of our nation, and the people should rightly have the power to directly elect him. The idea behind the Electoral College (whose member have one short-term purpose every four years they are selected) was to prevent a demagogue from taking power and setting himself up as King. That is no longer a possibility, with Constitutional term limits.

So give the people a direct vote, and let the man who gets the most votes be elected.

I would like to see a Hybrid system. Keep the electoral college but instead of winner take all by state I would proportion the number of electoral votes a candidate wins by the % of the election he/she receives.

I think that does two things which would be helpful:

- People who do not live in purple states would have their votes count for something.

- Sparsely populated states would have a larger voice than would be the case if we just used a popular vote. My sense is that is important to insure states rights
are affirmed.

This could be done at the state legislature level now, but states that are solidly one side or the other do not want to give up their monopoly on their electoral college votes.

 

[PirateMk1]

Glad to see the last thing you want ...is democracy ...freedom and liberty for all.... not many right-winger are so honest and forth coming.

You damn skippy I DONT want democracy. That's mob rule. That's just foolish. A republican government actually grants freedom for all, a democracy on grants freedom to those with the most votes. Minorities get screwed badly in a democracy.

 

[PirateMk1]

Good evening 2m, and I would agree but the notion of winner take all States in the electoral college has only served to help divide the country...

Winner take all is decided on by the states. Nebraska doesn't have winner take all.

 

[Artevelde]

When I look at recent threads like ...Should we look for ways to vote on issues and not on parties..... I think this is a bad idea. Why....simply because the average American would not have the time to watch congress every move ...unlike them ...we have to work for a living. And all this would do is allow old people ...and those with little to do control the country.

But if we got rid of the electoral college system ...that would allow a democratic voter in South Carolina for example and a republican voter in California to actually mean something.
I would bet money that a poll on this issue ...that would allow the people to really and truly speak ....would be resisted more by those on the right.
Why go through this sham every four years where Ohio and FL for example actually decide the presidency?

In my view ...it's the people that matter and not ..."the land" .

When you look at a MAP diving the country in red and blue ...visually...you wonder how democrats ever win an election.

But often the reality is how do they lose any election over the last 30 years..

Actually, Republican cadidates have won 5 of the last 9 elections for US President. And the "colour" of states has varied considerably throughout this period and earlier history.
It is a mistake to try to tailor electoral rules to myopic views of current conditions.
Personally I believe there is nothing wrong wit the electoral college system and no reason to change it.

 

[thinkforyoursel]

You damn skippy I DONT want democracy. That's mob rule. That's just foolish. A republican government actually grants freedom for all, a democracy on grants freedom to those with the most votes. Minorities get screwed badly in a democracy.

LOL......yeah ...the majority elected President can't grant freedom for all ....but a minority elected leader will ...LOL what a dumb statement.:lamo

Why not just roll the clock back to the days of King's and Queens .... based on your theory....then we would really be free!!

It's so amazing how the right wing want nothing to do with ....the actual will of the people!!

 

[Captain Adverse]

I would like to see a Hybrid system. Keep the electoral college but instead of winner take all by state I would proportion the number of electoral votes a candidate wins by the % of the election he/she receives.

I think that does two things which would be helpful:

- People who do not live in purple states would have their votes count for something.

- Sparsely populated states would have a larger voice than would be the case if we just used a popular vote. My sense is that is important to insure states rights
are affirmed.

This could be done at the state legislature level now, but states that are solidly one side or the other do not want to give up their monopoly on their electoral college votes.

There is no need for an electoral college. Proportional representation already exists in the Congress. That's where all legislation and taxation comes from. The President's job is to "guide the ship of state" in foreign and military affairs, and to enforce internally the laws enacted by Congress. Arguing for proporational representation is based on fears a particular political party will dominate the office, and perhaps this might be the case.

However, that's politics and serves as a motivator for every party to try to work with the entire populace rather than to focus on the insular goals and ideals of special interests.

 

[washunut]

There is no need for an electoral college. Proportional representation already exists in the Congress. That's where all legislation and taxation comes from. The President's job is to "guide the ship of state" in foreign and military affairs, and to enforce internally the laws enacted by Congress. Arguing for proporational representation is based on fears a particular political party will dominate the office, and perhaps this might be the case.

However, that's politics and serves as a motivator for every party to try to work with the entire populace rather than to focus on the insular goals and ideals of special interests.

You are the historical expert. But it seems to a relative novice like me that we have had a material shift in power in the three branches on government in the 20-21st century. Presidents seem to be much more accertive with their right on executive orders. Also they have used regulatory agencies to push their agendas without congress's approval by stacking agencies such as the NLRB or EPA. Almost to the point of an imperial presidency.

I do think that many states would have not joined the union if they felt that they would have so little say in how a government is formed.

 

[Captain Adverse]

You are the historical expert. But it seems to a relative novice like me that we have had a material shift in power in the three branches on government in the 20-21st century. Presidents seem to be much more accertive with their right on executive orders. Also they have used regulatory agencies to push their agendas without congress's approval by stacking agencies such as the NLRB or EPA. Almost to the point of an imperial presidency.

I do think that many states would have not joined the union if they felt that they would have so little say in how a government is formed.

I'm hardly an expert on ALL U.S. history, but thanks for asking.

I can state with some authority that many of the post-revolutionary leaders feared our Federal government would become this corrupt and domineering when initially arguing against the Constitution, and then demanding inclusion of a Bill of Rights in hopes of protecting citizens and States from this possibility.

As a student of history now, I'd say the power of the Federal system had its roots in the Civil War and its aftermath. Aside from slavery the South represented rural society; while the North represented industry and banking interests. With victory the North was able to push its own agenda onto the entire nation for more than a decade due to complete control of the Congress, and with its major influence on the other two branches of government. The Federal government became more powerful once "States rights" ideology was permanently defeated as citizens slowly began to look to it for action rather than seeking avenues within their own State systems.

Then came the Crash of 29, the Depression, and the Second World War. Paternalistic government and the increased power of the President came into it’s own under Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal programs during his unique three-term war-time Presidency. His example has been the basis of Presidential “powers” ever since and is reflected in the all-intrusive Federal monolith we see today.

That's a very condensed version of the process, but fairly accurate I think.

Having said all of that, I am not sure the President is really all that powerful, despite his increased use of "executive orders." Executive orders only affect the agencies he "supervises" and only as long as subsequent Presidents allow these orders to remain in force. The President does have great influence and serves as a focus for our ire, which is why I'd like to see direct election by popular vote. I actually posted something about this in another thread: http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...clining-economic-security.html#post1062122837 See post #6.