Is it time to revisit the Electoral College?
12-09-2003, 11:17 AM
#1
Community Organizer
Thread Starter
Is it time to revisit the Electoral College?
Should we become a true democracy (as opposed to a constitutional republic) and go with the popular vote?
12-09-2003, 12:50 PM
#3
If the founding fathers made one very unfortunate mistake-this was it, but you would need an amendment to change it and the folks in less populated states will never go for that.
12-09-2003, 03:42 PM
#4
In light of modern technology, the idea of the electoral college as a way to ensure "fairness" at the polls is dated. Ultimately, not far off I'm sure, we'll all be voting electronically.
I was embarassed to be an American back during the '00 election... That was just wrong. An American president should not win a popular vote and then lose electoral votes.
In point of fact, my understanding is that the electors are not obligated to even vote the conscience of their states! How absurd. I don't know if it's ever happened, but they can just get together and elect whomever they want! Bollox (as the Brits love to say).
Zippy is 100% right, though. Even after the '00 zaniness, it's unlikely that we'll ever see the electoral college get any airtime in Congress.
I was embarassed to be an American back during the '00 election... That was just wrong. An American president should not win a popular vote and then lose electoral votes.
In point of fact, my understanding is that the electors are not obligated to even vote the conscience of their states! How absurd. I don't know if it's ever happened, but they can just get together and elect whomever they want! Bollox (as the Brits love to say).
Zippy is 100% right, though. Even after the '00 zaniness, it's unlikely that we'll ever see the electoral college get any airtime in Congress.
12-09-2003, 04:14 PM
#5
Originally posted by Zippy
If the founding fathers made one very unfortunate mistake-this was it, but you would need an amendment to change it and the folks in less populated states will never go for that.
If the founding fathers made one very unfortunate mistake-this was it, but you would need an amendment to change it and the folks in less populated states will never go for that.
12-09-2003, 04:23 PM
#6
Community Organizer
Thread Starter
My problem with the electoral college is that it doesn't represent the ideal of "one man, one vote"
Local issues can and should be decided locally. If a presidential election is that important to a particular state - then residents of that particular state would be wise to vote in their own best interest.
My home state is an interesting contrast politically - folks in western Washington are more liberal than those in eastern WA. All of our electoral college votes go to the candidate that the we in the west vote for because we have the population. Not really fair to those in the east, is it?
Another problem IMO with the electoral college is the "projection" game the news providers play. If the race is deemed to be over before we out here in the west even vote - I'm sure a lot of folks don't even bother to cast their ballots when they feel the election is already over!
I would even support a proportional electoral college over what we have now - but I do feel it's time to go with a straight up popular vote.
Chazmo - I'm with you on the embarassment of the 2000 election.
I agree with those of you who believe a constitutional amendment isn't likely to happen though.
Local issues can and should be decided locally. If a presidential election is that important to a particular state - then residents of that particular state would be wise to vote in their own best interest.
My home state is an interesting contrast politically - folks in western Washington are more liberal than those in eastern WA. All of our electoral college votes go to the candidate that the we in the west vote for because we have the population. Not really fair to those in the east, is it?
Another problem IMO with the electoral college is the "projection" game the news providers play. If the race is deemed to be over before we out here in the west even vote - I'm sure a lot of folks don't even bother to cast their ballots when they feel the election is already over!
I would even support a proportional electoral college over what we have now - but I do feel it's time to go with a straight up popular vote.
Chazmo - I'm with you on the embarassment of the 2000 election.
I agree with those of you who believe a constitutional amendment isn't likely to happen though.
12-09-2003, 05:01 PM
#7
Originally posted by lig
Should we become a true democracy (as opposed to a constitutional republic) and go with the popular vote?
Should we become a true democracy (as opposed to a constitutional republic) and go with the popular vote?
Trending Topics
12-10-2003, 10:02 AM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: May 2003
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 1,526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The EC protects minorities as well as sparsely populated states--are you all sure you want straight rule by the majority? Think that through before you wish for it...
12-10-2003, 02:05 PM
#10
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: St Paul
Posts: 528
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the EC the way it is now, the people do not & never did elect the US president, the states do.
The EC was originally set up to prevent 'tyranny of the majority'. At the time the current constitution was written, the states were soverign unto themselves, and the US was only a loose 'confederation' of those states with little or no central power. The states were very reluctant to ceede power to the federal gov't, mostly because they just got done fighting a war against what they thought was a tyrannical central gov't. The small states were afraid of being dominated buy the large states in any sort of vote. The Senate and the EC area result of that fear.
The EC may not be a bad thing. It is certainly possible that the popular vote may end up electing a Hitler-type, and that the EC may un-elect him. Some would argue that today with the media & education of the people we don't need the isolation that the EC provides. I'm not so sure.
You could change the EC from winner-take-all to per-state proportional vote, which would make the large states less important. That way you'd still have the isolation/insulation of the EC but would have a EC vote that matches the popular vote closer.
--Mike
The EC was originally set up to prevent 'tyranny of the majority'. At the time the current constitution was written, the states were soverign unto themselves, and the US was only a loose 'confederation' of those states with little or no central power. The states were very reluctant to ceede power to the federal gov't, mostly because they just got done fighting a war against what they thought was a tyrannical central gov't. The small states were afraid of being dominated buy the large states in any sort of vote. The Senate and the EC area result of that fear.
The EC may not be a bad thing. It is certainly possible that the popular vote may end up electing a Hitler-type, and that the EC may un-elect him. Some would argue that today with the media & education of the people we don't need the isolation that the EC provides. I'm not so sure.
You could change the EC from winner-take-all to per-state proportional vote, which would make the large states less important. That way you'd still have the isolation/insulation of the EC but would have a EC vote that matches the popular vote closer.
--Mike