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 POTUS is not about representing the people. The POTUS is about representing the individual states joined together as one union.
Then why not have the president be elected by the Senate? Since we vote on who the president is, then that implies that it is the people the president is meant to represent. It is beyond time to change the electoral college and have it at least better reflect the people, as well make it easier for other parties to compete for office.
By the way, I paid attention in Civics class, every time I took it, in high school and college, so I know the purpose for the EC when it was created. I also know that we are able to update things when they are outdated. The EC is overdue for an update.
I guess this is where we disagree, I do think it is unfair to have someone in a less populated state have more power when it comes to electing a president than those in a more populated state. It is also unfair to have the minority representing the majority by having a larger say with their vote. I think the only fair solution is a system that represents a one for one. If you want to combine that with a proportional system and do away with the 270 benchmark to win, I would also support that too.
It is equally unfair to have 20 people in an apartment building have the same influence as 20 people who own 20 acres of land that pay goo-gobs more in property taxes than the apartment dwellers.
That's why the hybrid system works. It's a compromise of the two.
Then why not have the president be elected by the Senate? Since we vote on who the president is, then that implies that it is the people the president is meant to represent. It is beyond time to change the electoral college and have it at least better reflect the people, as well make it easier for other parties to compete for office.
By the way, I paid attention in Civics class, every time I took it, in high school and college, so I know the purpose for the EC when it was created. I also know that we are able to update things when they are outdated. The EC is overdue for an update.
Do you remember the part about needing 38 states to go along with your plan?
It is equally unfair to have 20 people in an apartment building have the same influence as 20 people who own 20 acres of land that pay goo-gobs more in property taxes than the apartment dwellers.
That's why the hybrid system works. It's a compromise of the two.
Not really, what makes those 20 people that live on farms have more say than those that live in apartments? That should just be 40 people voting. I am just going to have to disagree with you on this one, I think the current system for the EC is massively flawed, and does a poor job representing the people as a whole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadgates
Do you remember the part about needing 38 states to go along with your plan?
Of course I remember that part, what does that have to do with me having an opinion about this topic?
Not really, what makes those 20 people that live on farms have more say than those that live in apartments? That should just be 40 people voting. I am just going to have to disagree with you on this one, I think the current system for the EC is massively flawed, and does a poor job representing the people as a whole.
All I can tell you is that we are the United States of America for a reason. As numerous others have informed you - it ain't about the people.
All I can tell you is that we are the United States of America for a reason. As numerous others have informed you - it ain't about the people.
If that is the case, what is the point of people voting for president? Or technically voting for how the electoral voters should vote for president, it seems disingenuous and outdated.
If that is the case, what is the point of people voting for president? Or technically voting for how the electoral voters should vote for president, it seems disingenuous and outdated.
If you are really asking that question, I can't help you.
If you are really asking that question, I can't help you.
Or you don't know the answer.....it is a very valid question. The electoral voters vote for president, not the people of the country. Therefore if no one voted, the electoral voters would still vote for a president, so again, what is the point of having people vote for president if you think that isn't important?
No one complains about the electoral college when the candidate who wins also wins the popular vote because most people think their vote counts, but when the candidate who wins the popular vote, the question is why is the vote in a lesser populated state more important?
Even at the state level, we don't elect politicians this way, every state elects them through the popular vote. In Oregon, our governors tend to be Democrat because we have more democrats living in the state than we do republicans, yet a good portion of the state is republican. If we went off of how the electoral college functioned, then those that lived in the rural eastern part would have a stronger vote than those in the Willamette Valley.
The system works just fine. the problem is Liberals did not like the result , which was thought to be a sure win.
If the roles was reversed I am sure a President elect Clinton would not care so much!
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.
