What good is the electorial college?

[Peqkx]

Someone educate me on why we have it, and why it's better than the popular vote

 

[Lil' Timmy]

there is no reason.. it used to serve to give states more control in the election of the president (but this was in contrast to a legislative vote, not a dirct popular vote). of course, it serves no purpose now, and should be abolished. from this site, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but accurate, none-the-less:


5 Arguments for the Electoral College

1. The Electoral College, in recognizing a role for states in the selection of the president, reminds us of their importance in our federal system.
2. The Electoral College encourages more person-to-person campaigning by candidates, as they spend time in both the big cities and smaller cities in battleground states.
3. In close, contested elections, recounts will usually be confined to a state or two, rather than an across-the-country recount that might be required if we had direct election of the president.
4. The Electoral College, with its typical winner-take-all allocation of votes, often turns a small percentage margin of victory into one that appears much larger, thus making the victory seem more conclusive and adding to the winner's perceived legitimacy.
5. It's fun on election nights to watch states light up in different colors on television network maps of the U. S.

5 Arguments for Direct Popular Vote

1. When the winner of the Electoral College is not the candidate who received the most votes of the people, the new president will face questions about his legitimacy.
2. Most Americans believe that the person who receives the most votes should become president. Direct election is seen as more consistent with democratic principles than is the Electoral College system.
3. The Electoral College gives disproportionate weight to the votes of citizens of small states. For example, a vote by a resident of Wyoming counts about four times more--electorally--than a vote by a California resident.
4. If presidents were elected by direct popular vote, they would wage a campaign and advertise all across the nation, rather than (as they do in the Electoral College system) concentrating almost all of their time and effort in a handful of battleground states. The Electoral College system encourages candidates to pander to the interests of voters in a few closely contested states.
5. The Electoral College system, especially in a close election, is subject to the mischief that might be caused by disloyal--or even bribed--electors.

 

[Sprafa]

Amerika must be thru direct vote.

Power to the People

 

[Vigilante]

I can't remember exactly, but back when we adopted the constitution (NOT the articles of confederation!) there was some disagreement. I remember that the two parties struck a deal, and one was to have the electoral college if they could get something. I just cant remember what that something is ATM. I'll get back on it.

 

[Hapless]

We are NOT a democracy. We are a representative republic. Thank you, that is all.

 

[Mattigus]

We are NOT a democracy. We are a representative republic. Thank you, that is all.

Those are basically synonyms. Modern democracy, defined by Phillipe C. Schmitter and Terry Lynne Karl, is a "system of governance in which rulers are held accountable for their actions in the public and private realm by citizens, acting indirectly through the competition and cooperation of their elected representatives."

 

[gh0st]

a compromise, because the basic belief of the time was that the american people are uneducated, arrogant, thoughtless rednecks who couldent choose the appropriate candidate themselves.

 

[Neutrino]

I don't like it myself. I really don't see that it serves a purpose anymore. Also, the fact that there is a question of legitimacy if the popular vote contradicts the electorial vote is a strong argument against it in my opinion.

Not to mention that my vote hardly ever counts in any election because of it. I don't like my state.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

neutrino, what state do you live in?

 

[ShadowFox]

Today's purpose is to keep low population states on a somewhat even keel with high population states.

 

[Yuri]

neutrino, what state do you live in?

I think he is:

 

[Lil' Timmy]

I think he is:

since when is moscow a state?

 

[Neutrino]

Idaho. The kicker is that I live only 4 miles from Washington, a state that is currently leaning toward Kerry.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

Idaho.

dude!! your vote is worth 1.68 times the national average what are you complaining about :E

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

So that the mob vote of a single metropolis doesn't sway the entire vote.

In simple terms (and a crude example)

People in "Janjingo" city have decided that fertilizer should not use animal excrement, as they find it stinky. Nearly the entire city population of Janjingo (2 million) vote for this. However, there are three rural couties to the south of Janjingo with a combined population of 2 million. Farming is imperative to these counties livelyhoods, and they vote almost completely against the ban. The vote is 2 million to 2 million. But the counties have 3 total votes to the city's 2, due to the land division/population within each.

 

[Neutrino]

dude!! your vote is worth 1.68 times the national average what are you complaining about :E

Alright!

I didn't know I lived in such an awesome state! Idaho is the best!

....Lord, save me.

 

[P-Lo]

Hmmmn, wasn't the electoral college created for smaller populated states to be created equal to larger populated states, vote wise? I remember doing serveral pros and cons about having one and having a direct vote system earlier this year, in my senior year.. Hmm...need to think.

 

[Yuri]

since when is moscow a state?

I don't know, is this a trick question?!?!

 

[Lil' Timmy]

People in "Janjingo" city have decided that fertilizer should not use animal excrement, as they find it stinky. Nearly the entire city population of Janjingo (2 million) vote for this. However, there are three rural couties to the south of Janjingo with a combined population of 2 million. Farming is imperative to these counties livelyhoods, and they vote almost completely against the ban. The vote is 2 million to 2 million. But the counties have 3 total votes to the city's 2, due to the land division/population within each.

in other words, the votes of the city dwellers are worth less than those of the rural county residents.. in yet other words, the people of the city are lesser citizens. that's the kind of government i want to support*


*level of support depends on where you live, naturally.

I don't know, is this a trick question?!?!

yes.. and you got it wrong :|

 

[Yuri]

yes.. and you got it wrong :|

You're so mean, Timmy. I just took Neutrino's location seriously.

;(


By the way, the electorial college makes a tiny bit of sense to me. But I think it needs to be gotten rid of. Like, right now.

 

[Neutrino]

You're so mean, Timmy. I just took Neutrino's location seriously.

;(

It is serious. That's where I live.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

You're so mean, Timmy.

I just took Neutrino's location seriously.

and for that, you shall burn for eternity! :flame:

;(

 

[Yuri]

It is serious. That's where I live.

Yeah, I figured

(Wait, you live in a city called Moscow in the state of Idaho, right?)

Please don't hurt me any more. ;(

 

[Neutrino]

Yeah, I figured

(Wait, you live in a city called Moscow in the state of Idaho, right?)

Please don't hurt me any more. ;(

Bingo.

 

[qckbeam]

Bingo.

Bango?

 

[Lil' Timmy]

Please don't hurt me any more. ;(

:angel:

 

[Yuri]

:angel:

I'll admit it. I was pwn3d.

But at least I won at bingo!

Edit: And bango, AND bongo!

 

[Neutrino]

Bango?

Bongo.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

bungo?

p.s. the electoral college is unamerican.

 

[ShadowFox]

p.s. the electoral college is unamerican.

Howso? The US was never a direct democracy, and in fact one of the founding principals around when the Articles of Confederation were eliminated were state's rights.

 

[disruptioN_]

5. It's fun on election nights to watch states light up in different colors on television network maps of the U. S.

Exactly. :naughty:

 

[blahblahblah]

The electoral system is pretty funny. Our forefathers designed our country to prevent a tryannical government at the same time, but they made is so there can only be 2 dominant political parties at any one time. This is because a candidate needs 270 votes to become president. If you have 3 political parties it becomes impossible to reach that 270.

Interestingly, if there was to become a tie or a failure to reach 270 electoral votes, the decision to elect the president would then go to Congress. Well, the house of representatives to be specific. In the house, each state only gets one vote with a simple majority winning. That means a state like California has to have 53 house of representatives agree on what candidate to choose. Needless to say, both political parties want to avoid that from happening which is why you probably never see that happen again (it happened once in 1888).

Also, the electoral college is part of the Constitution which makes it incredibly difficult to change.

Each substitute way of electing a president has disadvantages. For example, the popular vote has the problem of too many candidates in the ballot. Imagine a ballot with 20 or more candidates. The amount of effort that must be put into make a knowledgable vote. Not to mention how do you determine the winner, 50% of vote to make the winner somewhat legitmate or the one with the most votes (ie Winner has 35%, 2nd place has 32%, etc) which causes problems with legitmacy?

5. The Electoral College system, especially in a close election, is subject to the mischief that might be caused by disloyal--or even bribed--electors.

That is wrong. Each party appoints a number of electors (depend on how many the state gets). If a specific party gets the popular vote, those appointed electors then go to Washington DC and cast there vote. Electors tend to be very loyal individuals to each party. Basically, each party has a designated set of electors if they win the state. Only the party that wins the popular vote in that state sends its electors to Washington to vote. However, roughly 25 states have laws forcing the electors to go along with the popular vote. The other 25 don't. However, that isn't an issue because electors as hand picked by each political party so the chance of a defection is pretty close to 0 (in fact it has never happened).

 

[Lil' Timmy]

Also, the electoral college is part of the Constitution which makes it incredibly difficult to change.

too bad we can't amend that damn constitution.. someone should have provided for that..

Each substitute way of electing a president has disadvantages. For example, the popular vote has the problem of too many candidates in the ballot. Imagine a ballot with 20 or more candidates. The amount of effort that must be put into make a knowledgable vote. Not to mention how do you determine the winner, 50% of vote to make the winner somewhat legitmate or the one with the most votes (ie Winner has 35%, 2nd place has 32%, etc) which causes problems with legitmacy?

that is an argument for the 2-party system, not an argument against a direct vote. there's certianly no more risk of legitimacy problems than when a candidate wins with less votes than their opponent.

That is wrong.

no, it's quite right. it's a statement about the weakness of the system. whether this has happned yet or not is besides the issue.

it's funny that conservatives are all for the electoral college.. i wonder how that will change if kerry pulls a bush and beats george with less of the popular vote...

 

[blahblahblah]

too bad we can't amend that damn constitution.. someone should have provided for that..

You can, with 2/3rds approval from the house, senate and president. The chances of that happen is like having HL2 spontaneously appear in my CD drive and already be installed on my computer and having an original mulitplayer besides CS:S. It's not going to happen.

that is an argument for the 2-party system, not an argument against a direct vote. there's certianly no more risk of legitimacy problems than when a candidate wins with less votes than their opponent.

When you see the electoral maps and with many states red/blue, it makes it look like that candidate won. Both are arugments against the direct vote because it is a distinct disadvantage for the direct vote systems. However, you can change them around and weakly apply them to the current electoral system.

no, it's quite right. it's a statement about the weakness of the system. whether this has happned yet or not is besides the issue.

Maybe I didn't make it clear. Let me give an example. The state of Arizona has 10 electorates. Now, the republican party assigns 10 electorates while the democratic party assigns 10 electorates as well. These electorates are often choosen because of they contributions to each respective party. These assigned electorates (for each respective party) are most likely loyal enough to take a bullet for their candidate. They don't give away electorate votes to anybody.

The election happens, and lets say the Republicans win by popular vote (because Arizona primarily is a Republican state). The ten Republican electorates go to Washington and cast their vote for the president. The 10 democratic electorates do absolutely nothing, they just go home. So, if the Arizona won by a democratic majority, the ten republicans would go home while the 10 democrats would go to Washington and cast their vote.

It makes it nearly impossible for an electorate to be bribed. It is based on popular vote with winner take all (on a per state basis). If you are talking about voter fraud then that is a completely different issue.

it's funny that conservatives are all for hte electoral college.. i wonder how that will change if kerry pulls a bush and beats george with less of the popular vote...

I never said I like the electoral college.

It will never change for numerous reasons with the foremost being the political resistance by both political parties. That is something I don't want to get in right now. Basically, changing our current electoral system to something else (ie direct vote) weakens the current political party structure dramatically. Alot of politicans don't want to see political parties weaken in power.

 

[Sprafa]

The Electoral College forces the bipartisan system.

Therefore, none of the 2 parties will ever give it up.

Amerikans, Uprise!!!

 

[Lil' Timmy]

It will never change for numerous reasons with the foremost being the political resistance by both political parties. That is something I don't want to get in right now. Basically, changing our current electoral system to something else (ie direct vote) weakens the current political party structure dramatically. Alot of politicans don't want to see political parties weaken in power.

i cannot think of a better argument for abolishing the electoral college.

 

[Sprafa]

i cannot think of a better argument for abolishing the electoral college.

I agree, but that's also the reason why the parties will join agaisnt it.

 

[Gray Fox]

the best thing would be to have a popular vote, that way everyone is assurde their vote counts, now if in a state the majority is for lest say the democrats, the republicans might as wall not vote, and another thing would be to abolish the 2 party system, but to have system where multiple parties can form coalitions and the biggest coalition rules, becasue lets say now a lots of people who would vote for Ralp Nader are going to vote for John Kerry so that Bush doesn't win, so its like asking them to chose the lesser evil, and that should not be the case, in the coalition way Ralph Nader and the democrats could form a bigger coalition than the republicans, and the policies would be a compromise betwen the democratsc and nader beliefs, offcourse the other way around with the republicans applies also, some people like mccain and other bush. This would at first be a little mess, with many candidates and fights and problems within coalitions, but altleast the voter turnout would be probably higher because their voice would be better heard, and lest be honest 2 parties dominating the politics for so long can't ever be good.

Oh yeah and, like many before me have said the two parties will never want to do that because that would abolish their powers, but isn't theri any way in the US, for some person to have that changed, I mean: if the majority of the US cziticens is for it, that a petttion kan be used to start a nation wide vote and if the majority of the people are for it, it will be changed no matter what the ruling political parties say.