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.
1. Difficulty in the horse and buggy era transmitting popular votes to a national central location so they all be counted.
2. Fear of democracy. This was particularly true when a nation had a high percentage of illiterate people.
3. Giving more political power to small states which was in accord with giving every state two senators, irrespective of its small population. One must ask though why the small states felt they needed this protection in the context of a federal union. Much of the reason may have been to guarantee that institutions such as slavery were protected.
Given the fact that communications and transportation have advanced by leaps and bounds and most of the population is no longer illiterate, do sufficient reasons still exist for determining the presidency based on an electoral vote?
I strongly lean towards deciding this based on the popular vote.
Can someone give me other reasons that support maintaining the electoral college as an institution?
Mob rule is bad. Therefore these wise forefathers decided Representative rule in a representative republic is good. Our forefathers knew classics and wisely anticipated courses best taken.
Athens found that pure democratic rule was not good for the city state. It resulted in paralysis of government. And I don't think Socrates drank hemlock because he wanted to. Pericles was not exiled because he asked for it.
Besides if you had popular vote then Major population centers such as NYC and LA area would basically make the election decisions. Not good, not fair, and not wise if you think about it
Mob rule is bad. Therefore these wise forefathers decided Representative rule in a representative republic is good. Our forefathers knew classics and wisely anticipated courses best taken.
Athens found that pure democratic rule was not good for the city state. It resulted in paralysis of government. And I don't think Socrates drank hemlock because he wanted to. Pericles was not exiled because he asked for it.
Besides if you had popular vote then Major population centers such as NYC and LA area would basically make the election decisions. Not good, not fair, and not wise if you think about it
The reality that states put up Referenda questions on the ballot contradict this.
Secondly, why shouldn't major population centers make those decisions based on their numbers?
They are the engines of the economy and the sources of so much of our tax money.
I don't see a very strong reason their votes should count for less?
I think the real reasons are simple partisan.
The Electoral College has benefited the Republican party twice now.
Hence, their supporters want to keep it.
Had the roles been reversed, they would be loudest to abolish it.
1. Difficulty in the horse and buggy era transmitting popular votes to a national central location so they all be counted.
2. Fear of democracy. This was particularly true when a nation had a high percentage of illiterate people.
3. Giving more political power to small states which was in accord with giving every state two senators, irrespective of its small population. One must ask though why the small states felt they needed this protection in the context of a federal union. Much of the reason may have been to guarantee that institutions such as slavery were protected.
Given the fact that communications and transportation have advanced by leaps and bounds and most of the population is no longer illiterate, do sufficient reasons still exist for determining the presidency based on an electoral vote?
I strongly lean towards deciding this based on the popular vote.
Can someone give me other reasons that support maintaining the electoral college as an institution?
I think the topic of balancing the interests of the states in choosing the federal executive is still valid. It may no longer be a slave vs. non-slave issue, but there are plenty of other small vs. large state issues and the electoral college does help find that middle ground of candidate that represents the blend of states and their unique interests and concerns the best.
The Fed does not ultimately control the Electoral College other than the fact that there is one. Any state is free to choose how they want to vote for and apportion their electors. A state could even theoretically have people vote for an elector who would then make the decision independently. Remember, that was the original plan. You chose an elector who then voted at the electoral college.
With the exception of Nebraska and Maine (who both have progressive apportionment systems) no state has even started moving in that direction despite various governors and legislatures of differing parties over time.
So, my first comment is that I don't necessarily see anything wrong with the current system. My second would be that any change needs to occur at the state level and should use a system similar to Maine or Nebraska. One EV for each Congressional district. Then assign the two Senatorial EV's to whomever wins the popular vote statewide.
If you live long enough, you'll find that what might be good for those in New York won't work at all for those in Texas. What works for a Kalifornian may not work at all for a Florida person. The electoral college evens the playing field between the high density populations of these large cities versus the folks living in the country. A Kalifornian may want no animals allowed over 50 lbs and make it law, and considering its now law about cow farts in Kalifornia, it's not only possible but likely. That won't work in Texas where we grow the beef you eat. So it can get stupid quick.
Every supporter of the Electoral College says it gives voters in more rural areas more power.
Is that why presidential candidates don't even bother showing up in states with few Electoral votes?
Keep the 2 senators per state and throw out the Electoral college for voting in elections.
For those that say............." we would have to amend the constitution "................so what ?
(it's not like we never have amended it in the past )
Every supporter of the Electoral College says it gives voters in more rural areas more power.
Is that why presidential candidates don't even bother showing up in states with few Electoral votes?
Keep the 2 senators per state and throw out the Electoral college for voting in elections.
For those that say............." we would have to amend the constitution "................so what ?
(it's not like we never have amended it in the past )
...well you would need a lot of those states to agree to amend the constitution and there is no reason for them to do it. There is an intended balancing of the power of the states within the system the Founders crafted. As detailed earlier, the reason for needing the balance has changed over time, but the macro point still stands.
The United States of America is a Union of independent States under a federal system. Read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. The Electoral College will not go away unless the USA dissolves.
Mob rule is bad. Therefore these wise forefathers decided Representative rule in a representative republic is good. Our forefathers knew classics and wisely anticipated courses best taken.
Athens found that pure democratic rule was not good for the city state. It resulted in paralysis of government. And I don't think Socrates drank hemlock because he wanted to. Pericles was not exiled because he asked for it.
Besides if you had popular vote then Major population centers such as NYC and LA area would basically make the election decisions. Not good, not fair, and not wise if you think about it
To liberal progressives, that would be just fine. Not because they actually believe millions of people condensed in a few places should make decisions for the entire country. No, it is because currently most of those people think like liberals do.
Can you imagine if most people in urban hell holes with the unique problems that come with living there (compared with most of the country) were conservative minded?
Then, the liberals would be screaming how unfair it is.
That is the problem with many liberals, in that they act like children, wanting what suits them now, but ignoring, or not caring about the unintended consequences.
Here is a video that explains why the FF's created the EC for our constitutional republic;
We must not be doing a very good job in teaching our children these days, as I learned all this stuff back in Middle & High school.
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.
