The Electoral College Explained (Decatur, Madison: graphic design, money, areas)

[chiatldal]

Originally Posted by micstatic

It's simple. If their were no electoral college. The candidates would offer up a campaign that would promote projects within NYC, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Miami only. They wouldn't need to worry about the rest of the country and they could still get elected. It's a way of protecting people who live in smaller communities.

Then it over represent rual communties in 1800 only 6% of the country was urban in 2010 80% of the country is urban

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by LovinDecatur

But essentially what is being argued on the other side is that we are a nation of states. Their existence was the very reason for the creation of the Constitution and the federal government. The Electoral College is a reflection of that.

Absolutely correct, LD.

It's funny though. While I love Georgia very much I somehow feel more aligned with the US as a whole.

Maybe that's just how I personally grew up. I was one of those kids who internalized all that stuff about purple mountains majesty and amber waves of grain, the statue of Liberty, etc.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Absolutely correct, LD.

It's funny though. While I love Georgia very much I somehow feel more aligned with the US as a whole.

Maybe that's just how I personally grew up. I was one of those kids who internalized all that stuff about purple mountains majesty and amber waves of grain, the statue of Liberty, etc.

I made far more sense to 'align with a state' when it was harder to get information, people, and items between them. At one point, your state WAS your country of origin in all practical matters. Now, it's not nearly as much that way.

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by bhammaster

If states come before people then we have the right system in place.


The founding fathers were not perfect and the fact that my vote can be nulled based on my geography to people who don't agree with me in a national election is a serious flaw.

This is very true. I always find it odd that some people seem to believe that the founding fathers were somehow some sort of uber-brain collective, the likes of which the world has never otherwise known. I'm sure they were smart guys, but I think the pedestal they are put on is a little too high.

I have a list of things I would question them about if I were able to go back in time and hang out with them.

I've also heard that phrase "tyranny of the majority". So, in my example, couldn't a "tyranny of the minority" happen as well. It doesn't seem like the electoral college really protects anything.

[Iconographer]

Originally Posted by bhammaster

If states come before people then we have the right system in place.


The founding fathers were not perfect and the fact that my vote can be nulled based on my geography to people who don't agree with me in a national election is a serious flaw.

Another serious flaw is to forget that the nation and its' government exist at the pleasure of the states. It was with their tacit permission that it was created, and they didn't have to do so. The early leaders of the nation (starting with Washington) were keenly aware of the precarious nature of this relationship, and their actions were certainly governed by that. Otherwise why would Congress exist? Its' primary role has always been to protect the welfare of the individual states.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

This is very true. I always find it odd that some people seem to believe that the founding fathers were somehow some sort of uber-brain collective, the likes of which the world has never otherwise known. I'm sure they were smart guys, but I think the pedestal they are put on is a little too high.

I have a list of things I would question them about if I were able to go back in time and hang out with them.

I've also heard that phrase "tyranny of the majority". So, in my example, couldn't a "tyranny of the minority" happen as well. It doesn't seem like the electoral college really protects anything.

They were a remarkable group. Put together the founding fathers were astounding.

Kind of like John, Paul, George and Ringo.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

I get the purpose of the electoral college, but it is inherently flawed. It is possible, although highly unlikely, for a candidate to win even if they receive only 24% of the vote, and another candidate receives 76% of the vote. Any system in which a candidate can receive 3/4 of the vote and still lose is pretty dumb, in my opinion.

Your flaw is you don't understand the purpose. It was to balance power between states. Lincoln got zero votes in a lot of states in 1860.

And if they did it like Maine and Nebraska where they split electoral vote between congressional districts, you wouldn't have as extreme a result possible.

[Iconographer]

Originally Posted by bu2

They were a remarkable group. Put together the founding fathers were astounding.

Kind of like John, Paul, George and Ringo.

Somehow the system that they established has held together for centuries; not an easy feat for any government. What's more, it became a model for government reformation all over the world.
They also knew that it would not guarantee a consistently smooth road. To quote a conversation with Benjamin Franklin:

" The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it."

[atltechdude]

Originally Posted by LovinDecatur

But certainly not a pure democracy, which sounds to be what the "one person, one vote" proponents are advocating.
I'll defer to the earlier explanation by Aubie, who puts it more out there more eloquently than I could-

"I'm sorry you don't understand but the popular vote of each state very much matters. That is how we determine the electors (who are faithful over 99% of the time). Regardless, the presidential vote is very overrated. Local, state, and congressional elections are far more important to the actual laws that are passed. I wish people paid more attention to those.

The electoral college is not some "secret" system or a "sham". Votes absolutely matter, and the days of electors not following the will of the people are long gone. I was taught how it worked in AP Government and again in a government class in college. It stinks that your teacher evidently did not, but the research is not hard to conduct on your own. The electoral college helps preserve our system of federalism, which is crucial to our system of government."

An inconvenient truth for some, apparently, but is what it is. And I really haven't yet heard an argument compelling enough to change my mind.

No, a pure democracy is where the people vote on all of the issues themselves in referenda.

Electing the president by direct popular vote is still an indirect democracy. We are still electing a leader to make the decisions for us, rather than voting on each issue ourselves.

[Iconographer]

Originally Posted by atltechdude

No, a pure democracy is where the people vote on all of the issues themselves in referenda.

Electing the president by direct popular vote is still an indirect democracy. We are still electing a leader to make the decisions for us, rather than voting on each issue ourselves.

You're right about that, and I stand corrected. In that sense, 'pure' is not the right adjective.
Mutiny put the term 'representative democracy' out there, which would probably be more appropriate.