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.
Wouldn't it be great if the Federal Government had to run to the states to beg for money rather than the other way around? That's how it was before the income tax.
A partial cause of the Civil War was the Electoral College. The jist of it was the Northern states with much higher populations were able to dominate the entire country's politics. The South only seceded after the election results clearly drew the lines. Both regions had different economies, and the Northeast never thought of the ramifications of huge cotton export taxes, nor did they believe they were wrong in forcing politics that worked for their lifestyle on those in the South. This is why the Confederate Constitution emphasized State's Rights over anything else.
The only state right that the Confederacy was concerned about was what they thought was their divine right to buy and sell other people. The Civil War was about slavery, attempts to dress it up with the state's rights crap are appalling.
Wouldn't it be great if the Federal Government had to run to the states to beg for money rather than the other way around? That's how it was before the income tax.
Before the Constitution, you mean. And it didn't work... which was one of the reasons the Constitution was written.
The electoral college favors large states with a near 50/50 Democrat & Republican split. Larger states that appear to lean heavily on one side (Texas, New York etc.) get hurt the most.
Candidates rarely campaign where I live (TX) because it's a foregone conclusion that the state will vote for the G.O.P. Demographically, we could certainly push toward a 50/50 split, but the apathy keeps many voters at home.
Does that matter? Why shouldn't the most highly populated states make the decision? Those are the people that will be most affected by government.
It matters because elections aren't just about who wins. Elections are conversations between the people and the candidates. Elections are an opportunity for people not just to quiz a candidate about what he proposes to do when in office, but to tell the candidates what their concerns and priorities are. Essentially, the most highly populated states do make the decision, but the electoral college's small bit of influence helps to keep the more rural areas involved in the conversation.
While people focus on dissolving the electoral college, which isn't a problem, they should focus on the real problems. The primary system needs to be reworked, so that Iowa and New Hampshire aren't so influential. We should have regional primaries that rotate on a schedule, so that one year the first primaries are held in the Pacific Northwest, the next year they are held in the Upper Midwest, the next year they are held in New England, and so on. And we need to address the growing problem with the disconnect between the people and their elected representatives by getting rid of the 435 cap on the number of representatives. That would allow the electoral college to more equitably distribute electors. The current cap distorts that.
And state laws determine how the electors will vote. Not federal law. The winner-take-all system is designed to empower the two primary parties, and if we want a more open system, that has to be addressed.
It matters because elections aren't just about who wins. Elections are conversations between the people and the candidates. Elections are an opportunity for people not just to quiz a candidate about what he proposes to do when in office, but to tell the candidates what their concerns and priorities are. Essentially, the most highly populated states do make the decision, but the electoral college's small bit of influence helps to keep the more rural areas involved in the conversation.
While people focus on dissolving the electoral college, which isn't a problem, they should focus on the real problems. The primary system needs to be reworked, so that Iowa and New Hampshire aren't so influential. We should have regional primaries that rotate on a schedule, so that one year the first primaries are held in the Pacific Northwest, the next year they are held in the Upper Midwest, the next year they are held in New England, and so on. And we need to address the growing problem with the disconnect between the people and their elected representatives by getting rid of the 435 cap on the number of representatives. That would allow the electoral college to more equitably distribute electors. The current cap distorts that.
And state laws determine how the electors will vote. Not federal law. The winner-take-all system is designed to empower the two primary parties, and if we want a more open system, that has to be addressed.
Elections are a process that allows the people to have a say so in who represents them by means of a democratic vote. The Electoral College is a system that's out dated and needs to be replace immediately.
Regarding the primaries, they should just have all votes cast on the same day...
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.
Why do we still use the Electoral College system?
