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 reason for not voting by the popular vote is that it would give the urban areas an edge over rural less populated areas. Since the cities are made up of mostly democrats, they would win most of the presidential elections.
The last thing we need to do is give elected officials more power over the people.
You recall that what we are doing today is voting for elected officials: the electors of the Electoral College. But fine, it's a valid philosophical dispute. As far as I can see, there are only four alternatives for the selection of our head of state:
Direct election by the people: but not everyone (such as the person whose post I replied to) trusts the people enough to confide that great responsibility to them.
Indirect election by some mechanism: but not everyone (such as you yourself) trusts elected officials ditto.
A mixture of the above: my modest proposal above, which of course is liable to both objections.
Election by God: The American people seem to be fairly clear in not wanting an hereditary monarch, and in any case it would require major constitutional surgery to separate the executive power, since presumably if we don't want a king, we certainly don't want a king with the powers currently enjoyed by the president.
The reason for not voting by the popular vote is that it would give the urban areas an edge over rural less populated areas.
That would be democratic, naturally - most of us reject the idea that a citizen's vote should be worth more because he happens to live in a sparsely-populated zip code, true?
Quote:
Since the cities are made up of mostly democrats, they would win most of the presidential elections.
As the parties are presently aligned and constituted, certainly. But since politicians are very practical people, the parties would very soon adjust accordingly. There would certainly still be a party representing the right side of the political spectrum, but it might very well look and sound very different from the present GOP.
Of course, if this election results the way most seem to expect, the GOP is likely to reshape itself to appeal more convincingly to urban - or at least, suburban - voters in any case.
You recall that what we are doing today is voting for elected officials: the electors of the Electoral College. But fine, it's a valid philosophical dispute. As far as I can see, there are only four alternatives for the selection of our head of state:
Direct election by the people: but not everyone (such as the person whose post I replied to) trusts the people enough to confide that great responsibility to them.
Indirect election by some mechanism: but not everyone (such as you yourself) trusts elected officials ditto.
A mixture of the above: my modest proposal above, which of course is liable to both objections.
Election by God: The American people seem to be fairly clear in not wanting an hereditary monarch, and in any case it would require major constitutional surgery to separate the executive power, since presumably if we don't want a king, we certainly don't want a king with the powers currently enjoyed by the president.
It's all irrelevant. It would take a Constitutional Amendment to change how we vote and you are never going to get 2/3 of the states to agree.
The nullification argument will fall on it's face as soon as a state like N.Y. has to place it's vote for a (R).
It would take a Constitutional Amendment to change how we vote and you are never going to get 2/3 of the states to agree.
Oh, sure, I agree. American constitutional reform is a fun parlor game, but it's not practical politics.
The only thing that worries me is that constitutions which cannot be repaired usually end up collapsing eventually. Fortunately, my children carry two passports.
What we need to do is throw out our constitution and start anew. The one that we have is OK but there's no question that it's impeding our progress at this point.
"The best argument for finally ridding ourselves of the Electoral College, besides that it is a regular reminder that our sainted Founding Fathers created an explicitly undemocratic and exclusionary form of government when they invented a system that no other country has been fool enough to imitate, is that it assigns far too weighty a responsibility to states that are completely incompetent and mostly run by horrible *******s.
And so this particular miserable election has come down to essentially three states: Florida, Virginia and Ohio. But mostly Ohio. Ohio is a depressing place already, as is much of the post-industrial Midwest, and this attention is not making them any happier. Florida is full of lunatics and run by criminals. Virginia might elect George Allen again. This is no way to run a country."
And replace it with what? A vote by population? If we did that then New York (the small region of the northeast) and California (the west coast) would be deciding each and every election by voting population alone. That would be destructive to our country - for what should be obvious reasons. It also invalidates your argument - as we would simply be replacing "Ohio and Florida" with two other high population states and the crux of your complaint would still stand.
Nope - founding fathers were no dummies, and this system is ingenious in balancing regional interest, population, buth rural and urban considerations, and states rights into the voting decision. We aren't United State of America (no S at end)...we are United StateS - a varied and diversified population spread out in a huge geographical area of the world. The balance of states is an important piece in not only the executive branch, but the legislative branch. Why don't we elect congress by population also - do you want half the senators and congressman coming from California and New York? Guess where all the political attention would be at. We would have a small region of the country thrive and a large part of the country languish. The overalll effect to the nation, even in these thriving areas, would be negative and wasteful. Trust me, people much smarter than you considered the alternatives.
Ohio and Florida do not decide the vote, their are 48 other states that decide as well, some with more electorial votes, some with less. It's just that these may go either way. Next election it may be other states. So what? Let those stupid politcal attack ads be played there instead of in my state.
That would be democratic, naturally - most of us reject the idea that a citizen's vote should be worth more because he happens to live in a sparsely-populated zip code, true?
As the parties are presently aligned and constituted, certainly. But since politicians are very practical people, the parties would very soon adjust accordingly. There would certainly still be a party representing the right side of the political spectrum, but it might very well look and sound very different from the present GOP.
Of course, if this election results the way most seem to expect, the GOP is likely to reshape itself to appeal more convincingly to urban - or at least, suburban - voters in any case.
Actually YOU are advocating that a citizen's vote should be worth more based on where he lives. Because that's one of the inherent flaws with democracies. Democracies always favor the more urban population base. Democracies are driven by numbers. Urban centers have greater numbers. Urban centers control democracies.
The electoral college gives rural residents a miniscule advantage in a system where they are inherently disadvantaged.
The fact that you are perfectly all right with the idea of robbing any part of the American electorate of their voice in this process is appalling.
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.
