Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've heard a different version of this argument but you've framed it in a way that makes me question its validity.
No nation on earth with direct democratic elections is quite like the picture you paint. In the scenario you envision, individual humans would continue to vote and think as they currently do. But that's not what would happen. Differentiation of ideas (competing memes) will always occur, and even if your scenario played out as you predict for the first such election, it would correct itself quickly by virtue of the diversity of minds and the proliferation of memes.
Sparsely inhabited places already have more than their fair share of power through the senate. Wyoming and Vermont, for example, have as many senators as California and Texas. Do we really need more weight placed on the votes of the scattered and those who live in micro-states? They're doing just fine in the senate and don't need the electoral college as additional help. You just made my mind up for me, I'm voting in this poll to eliminate the system!
That's my problem with that argument, too. The House is already set up to represent states according to population. I don't see why it should be done again in the Presidential elections, too.
Someone made the point that the Vermont Republican (are there any? ), or the Wyoming Democrat have no incentive to get out and vote. Why should anyone from Montana bother?
No system is perfect. I just think the electoral college is really archaic and imperfect.
Okay, I'm not disregarding your argument, but simply stating that if we have a shift and go straight popular vote I think the MAJOR cities in America would get all the attention and the rest of the country could rot as far as the politicians are concerned. Personally, I like the idea that one state can hinge the outcome of an election (like Colorado or Ohio). This way it forces the politician to go all over the country and truly get a sense for what Americans in all walks of life want from Washington, rather than a bunch of people in LA or NYC. That is simply the point I'm making. I also don't think this could even possibly be a productive way to create viable 3rd party. Our system already works heavily against this idea, so how could going popular vote help, wouldn't it actually hurt? Just my 2 cents.
...if we have a shift and go straight popular vote I think the MAJOR cities in America would get all the attention and the rest of the country could rot as far as the politicians are concerned. Personally, I like the idea that one state can hinge the outcome of an election (like Colorado or Ohio). This way it forces the politician to go all over the country...
This is the classic argument, the best one for the current system. But what is this "attention" that states and municipalities receive from politicians? Mostly lies in campaign ads. I don't think it fosters any kind of meaningful exchange of ideas. I'm being very cynical but there are good reasons to feel bitter and cynical in a time when most people are poorly informed and vote on emotions, while lobbyists continue to control our government from the inside of the Beltway and TV viewers are bombarded by menacing voices and slow-motion video of the evil people we're supposed to vote against. It's a joke, a very sad joke...
....good reasons to feel bitter and cynical in a time when most people are poorly informed and vote on emotions, while lobbyists continue to control our government from the inside of the Beltway and TV viewers are bombarded by menacing voices and slow-motion video of the evil people we're supposed to vote against. It's a joke, a very sad joke...
I couldn't agree with you more on this one. Unfortunately, either way the election system goes won't have any effect on this problem. Our government has been and will always be controlled by the richest and most powerful people. Just take a look at the senate. Nobody in the senate was ever hurting for money, all of them were millionaires before getting elected...
I say we keep it. It has worked for a couple hundred years with no problems. This helps to better represent the various areas of the country. This way NY and LA do not swallow up the majority of funding, etc.
I think the Electoral College was a brilliant handstroke on the part of our founding fathers setting up our political system. True there's merit to the "one vote for each citizen" and each citizen's vote should count. But what the founders of America took into account was that some regions have very small populations and they face issues that more populous areas might not face. People in Maine may have quite different issues than Californians, or people in North Dakota versus Florida. Yet if there is a candidate going for president who is taking a theme or running a platform that serves mostly the interests of the popular areas, then in reality, the vote of the lighter populated areas is less valid than the more populated area. The idea of the Electoral College is to make sure that little states have enough pull and influence to have a fighting chance against major population centers who may not share their needs or interests and force the candidates to have to take them into account as well. This way no one is left behind and this is truly democratic. Without the Electoral College, candidates catering to the needs of California, Texas, and Florida would win by simple popular vote advantage. It usually works out anyway that the popular vote winner is also the Electoral College majority winner. It comes into play only in very close elections and I support its continued existence as a built-in mechanism to help ensure that the small states aren't lost in the mix.
I think the Electoral College was a brilliant handstroke on the part of our founding fathers setting up our political system. True there's merit to the "one vote for each citizen" and each citizen's vote should count. But what the founders of America took into account was that some regions have very small populations and they face issues that more populous areas might not face. People in Maine may have quite different issues than Californians, or people in North Dakota versus Florida. Yet if there is a candidate going for president who is taking a theme or running a platform that serves mostly the interests of the popular areas, then in reality, the vote of the lighter populated areas is less valid than the more populated area. The idea of the Electoral College is to make sure that little states have enough pull and influence to have a fighting chance against major population centers who may not share their needs or interests and force the candidates to have to take them into account as well. This way no one is left behind and this is truly democratic. Without the Electoral College, candidates catering to the needs of California, Texas, and Florida would win by simple popular vote advantage. It usually works out anyway that the popular vote winner is also the Electoral College majority winner. It comes into play only in very close elections and I support its continued existence as a built-in mechanism to help ensure that the small states aren't lost in the mix.
As a Californian, it irks me that no one really pays attention to our electoral votes, because by the time our polls close out here, the results are already coming in from other time zones! It's all a matter of timing, because California has the most electoral votes being that it is the most populated state.
My other reaction to posters who said that politicians would only pay attention to L.A. and NYC was, "What's wrong with that?" at first. LOL. Then I began thinking about who my neighbors are in this huge city, and how uninformed and just plain ignorant they are about most issues, and a shudder went through me. I'm not sure the Electoral College serves such a great purpose, but I understand why it's still in place today.
Benjamin Franklin surely had a way of looking down his nose at people trying to find right paths but sorely missing it. He apparently had a talent for recognizing logical methods but also scoffed at the illogical.
He found most of the founding fathers to be the types that "trip over dollars to pick up dimes".
He suggested the electoral-college as a prank! Surely, he thought, no fool would go for such an absurdity and that's why he brought up the idea.
Imagine his disgruntlement as it was seconded, passed, praised and instituted! He got to see a lot of this sort of thing in his lifetime. Genuises just have to deal with it, I guess.
In Wyoming, we have one (1) electoral vote. Oh, the humanity.
In Wyoming, we have one (1) electoral vote. Oh, the humanity.
Actually, Wyoming has 3 electoral votes (the minimum number any state can have).
And coming from a similarly populated state, I would only be in favor of eliminating the Electoral College if the election method were changed to some sort of Preferential voting method (such as the Borda, Condorcet, or Instant-runoff methods).
Chap
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's all a matter of timing, because California has the most electoral votes being that it is the most populated state.
