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.
The Electoral College is a key element in the system to prevent to masses from having any real power over the plutocrats that own the nation and rent the government. If the masses had any real power Monsanto would have never been allowed to monopolize farming in the US or lie to the public about the actual effects of its evil wizardry.
The Electoral College indeed was supposed to suppress popular will. But elections that are effectively a tie aside, when was the last time the Electoral College decided anything? Your post is conclusory and gives no logic. When did Monsanto decide an election? Does Monsanto own more than 50% of U.S. farm land?
The USA has never been a democracy and it's worked great as a Constitutional Republic for 240 years. No need to change. I think the popular vote winners lost electoral college twice, big deal.
I think three times (not sure how you count John Quincy Adams v. Jackson v. Clay) since that went into the House.
I prefer the electoral votes, but believe they should be awarded proportionally by the states. Right now that is done by Nebraska and Maine. At one time, the dem party pushed to have CO EC proportional, but didn't get it to happen. And when the republicans murmured about CA, the dems went crazy.
The electoral college is nothing but an eighteenth century anachronism.
it is not necessary today and should be abolished. In effect, the electoral college weights the votes of people who live in states like Alaska, Wyoming, and North Dakota much more significantly than voters who live in California, New York, Texas, Florida, or Pennsylvania. All votes should be equally weighted in our country because a citizen who lives in Fargo, North Dakota should have no more political power than a citizen who lives in Santa Barbara, California. Our fourteenth amendments states that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws. In effect, by granting more political power to some citizens than to others, the electoral college denies citizens the equal protection of the law. No right is more fundamental to citizens to both vote and have their votes counted equally.
That being said, these discussions are meaningless. In order to change the current system, it would be necessary to amend the Constitution. This would require 3/4's of the states to agree. The people in states with small populations would be forced to give up some measure of political power. The reality is that no person ever willingly surrenders political power. Therefore, such an amendment would never be ratified.
It doesn't mean the electoral college isn't a bad system though. When a candidate as late as 2000 can get near 500,000 more popular votes than his opponent and still lose the election it proves the system is wrong.
Some people believe that anything the framers put in the Constitution 227 years ago is sacrosanct. I disagree. Its why the framers gave us an amendment process.
Some people believe that anything the framers put in the Constitution 227 years ago is sacrosanct. I disagree. Its why the framers gave us an amendment process.
Not sacrosanct. But, very, very good stuff.
They gave us an amendment process. But, rightfully made amending it very difficult.
The Constitution is an agreement between the States. Not between the people.
If a simple popular vote were to be used, why should States with small populations remain in the Union?
The electoral college is nothing but an eighteenth century anachronism.
it is not necessary today and should be abolished. In effect, the electoral college weights the votes of people who live in states like Alaska, Wyoming, and North Dakota much more significantly than voters who live in California, New York, Texas, Florida, or Pennsylvania. All votes should be equally weighted in our country because a citizen who lives in Fargo, North Dakota should have no more political power than a citizen who lives in Santa Barbara, California. Our fourteenth amendments states that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws. In effect, by granting more political power to some citizens than to others, the electoral college denies citizens the equal protection of the law. No right is more fundamental to citizens to both vote and have their votes counted equally.
That being said, these discussions are meaningless. In order to change the current system, it would be necessary to amend the Constitution. This would require 3/4's of the states to agree. The people in states with small populations would be forced to give up some measure of political power. The reality is that no person ever willingly surrenders political power. Therefore, such an amendment would never be ratified.
It doesn't mean the electoral college isn't a bad system though. When a candidate as late as 2000 can get near 500,000 more popular votes than his opponent and still lose the election it proves the system is wrong.
Some people believe that anything the framers put in the Constitution 227 years ago is sacrosanct. I disagree. Its why the framers gave us an amendment process.
What would happen in a popular vote system is that the suburbs of New York City, Los Angeles and San Fransisco would replace Ohio and Florida as "ground zero" for campaigning since both have lots of people and the areas historically shift between parties. In other words abolishing the college wouldn't have much effect. Also it would likely force the creation of a runoff election to prevent multiple candidates and the possibility of a popular "winner" having very few actual votes. All electoral countries other than the U.S. which have an elected President do this. Other electoral countries with Parliamentary systems do not directly elect the operating leader.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salmonburgher
Not sacrosanct. But, very, very good stuff.
They gave us an amendment process. But, rightfully made amending it very difficult.
The Constitution is an agreement between the States. Not between the people.
If a simple popular vote were to be used, why should States with small populations remain in the Union?
I happen to agree with you. The problem of allocating voting strength almost prevented the Constitution's ratification in the first place. Why tinke with this aspect of it?
We need to abolish The Electoral College. Its purpose is to maintain control of the presidential election outcome within the hands of a small number of political operatives. It is for all practical purposes an American politburo. Given that we have a duopoly of political parties, both of which are to the right of center, The Electoral College serves to allow that the presidential election will technically be decided by insiders within those two political parties.
From a democratic perspective, The Electoral College allows for a disproportionate amount of power to be held by small states. For example, the state of Wyoming has three electoral votes--about one vote for every 195,000 people. On the other extreme, California has fifty-five electoral votes--about one vote for every 705, 000 people. This means that a popular vote cast in Wyoming carries three and-a-half times the weight of a popular vote cast in California.
A national popular vote is the only truly democratic way of electing a president.
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.
