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.
This thread is disappointing. I thought Great Debates threads were supposed to be held to a higher standard. Half of the defenders of the Electoral College want it kept because thats what our Founders wanted. Our Founders also owned human beings as property, whipped, them and probably even raped them too. They also never intended for women to vote, or be anything other than baby factories. I don't know what obsession people have with Idolizing our Founding Fathers as if they somehow know better than us, and always will.
I will admit that it is unfair to hold historical figures to our modern moral standards, because times change and countries & societies evolve. Our founding fathers KNEW this, and that is why they never intended our government to be stagnate and never changing. They specifically set up the constitution to be able to evolve with the times, and they even imagined a constitutional convention should be called every decade or so as to come up with a new, updated constitution. Unfortunately, when that first decade came to pass, fools in the government idolized what the founding fathers had created too much to call for a convention, and choose to ignore the wishes of the founders. That created the silly precedent of forever idolizing the founders that lasts till this day.
The other half of the defenders of the electoral college mistakenly believe it was created to protect rural areas, or small states, or some other conservative nonsense(seeing as the majority of the country was rural when the electoral college was created.) The electoral college is mentioned nowhere in the constitution, and thats because it was created out of necessity, not as some kind of voter protection enshrined in our constitution.
People forget this fact, but the US is actually the oldest democratic country in existence today. Our founders had nothing to base it to, only ideals left behind from ancient times. When it came time to deciding on a voting system, they needed to find the quickest, most efficient way to elect a president in a vast sparsely populated country. There was no radio, telephone or even telegraph. The fastest communication took days/weeks, and the states still held on to their identities as colonial rivals rather than a single united country.
One election would be a logistical nightmare to oversee, instead each state would hold their own election. This way, not only was easier to hold the election, each state wouldn't have to rely a neighboring rival state to oversee their own election. The states would elect their representatives and send them to the electoral college, where the real election could take place on a more manageable scale. The founding fathers were also kind of intellectual snobs, they didn't want the uneducated masses electing an orange orangutan to office, so the electoral college also functioned as a defense mechanism, through faithless electors, for elites to keep undesirables out of office. And it worked until Andrew Jackson broke through the ranks.
The Electoral College is a relic from colonial days and no longer serves its function. We're not a group of former rival colonies recently banded together against an empire and separated by weeks long communication systems. We don't want power to be focused on a lucky few, rather than the masses. Its time to shake off the relic from the past and come up with a new voting system. And not just for the Presidency. Its sheer lunacy that someone can win an office with less than 50% of the vote. A winner take all system, like we have, leads to a two party system, where people vote for the lesser of 2 evils, rather than the candidate they want to vote for. Rank order voting or the Alternative Voting method would solve much of the problems with our political system.
With all that talk, you never actually pointed out anything wrong with the EC or suggested anything that might fix anything that was wrong with the EC.
With all that talk, you never actually pointed out anything wrong with the EC or suggested anything that might fix anything that was wrong with the EC.
All you said was, "It's old."
Perhaps you need to re-read my post. But in case your reading skills aren't up to par, let me condense it for you.
Its a system that came about out of a compromise between rival states that had mistrust for one another, in a time period where communication took weeks. It was designed to disenfranchise the majority in favor of a select few, originally the political royalty (all presidents before Jackson,) now in favor of swing and small state voters.
Following your logic, we should have never replaced the telegraph. After all, there is nothing technically wrong with it. But better, easier, and "fairer" methods of communications have come along, so we replaced it. Same thing with the electoral college. It served its purpose when it was created, but it disenfranchises too many voters today and it makes no sense to continue it use when better voting methods have come along.
With all that talk, you never actually pointed out anything wrong with the EC or suggested anything that might fix anything that was wrong with the EC.
All you said was, "It's old."
Old and outdated should be the major reason for changing. When I think about it; a Federal election should have the highest standards and checks and balances. The office is also for Commander in Chief.
Someone needs to step up and start and finish a change. The time is of most importance.
The electoral college is mentioned nowhere in the constitution, and thats because it was created out of necessity, not as some kind of voter protection enshrined in our constitution.
I don't know if it's specifically mentioned by name but the process most certainly is outlined. If you want to change this it can only be done two ways, you either need to amend the Constitution or you can circumvent with pact where enough states that have 270 votes agree to elect by popular vote.
You can complain about this for the rest of your life, those are your options.
With all that talk, you never actually pointed out anything wrong with the EC or suggested anything that might fix anything that was wrong with the EC.
All you said was, "It's old."
Good point, the First Amendment is old too, does the poster think it has no meaning? How about that very old Bill of Rights, toss the whole thing because it's old? You make a great point, being old doesn't mean being bad or needing to replace. Heck New York City is old, should we demolish it, how about Boston, D.C., Chicago, L.A.?
The electoral college is mentioned nowhere in the constitution, and thats because it was created out of necessity, not as some kind of voter protection enshrined in our constitution.
Plain wrong. "Article II
Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
Following your logic, we should have never replaced the telegraph. After all, there is nothing technically wrong with it. But better, easier, and "fairer" methods of communications have come along, so we replaced it. Same thing with the electoral college. It served its purpose when it was created, but it disenfranchises too many voters today and it makes no sense to continue it use when better voting methods have come along.
"Fairer" is a matter of opinion, what you see as unfair I see working as intended. The Senate, Electoral College and equal vote for each state to amend the Constitution were not by accident. They were very well aware of how majority could stomp on minority, those 3 things help insure that does not happen. The ultimate power of this country lies with the states as intended.
It is OBVIOUSLY flawed because it essentially disenfranchises voters in large states in favor of smaller ones because of its winner takes all metric! If it was proportional voting, Trump NEVER wins because, for example, in a state with 30 electoral college votes but where he wins 51% he gets say 16 votes not 30. Texas would have been much more important to Clinton. At a minimum, winner take all state wins should only be allowed if one candidate can get 60% or more of that state's voting total.
Perhaps you need to re-read my post. But in case your reading skills aren't up to par, let me condense it for you.
I think it's interesting when a person writes a lot but doesn't even understand how what he wrote does not answer the mail.
Quote:
Its a system that came about out of a compromise between rival states that had mistrust for one another, in a time period where communication took weeks. It was designed to disenfranchise the majority in favor of a select few, originally the political royalty (all presidents before Jackson,) now in favor of swing and small state voters.
The Great Compromise has nothing to do with slavery or with the speed of communication. It has to do with the basic structure of the United States as a union of semi-autonomous regional entities.
As long as "states" exist, the Great Compromise will continue to be necessary to balance the power of population centers against the equality of states in the Union.
Whatever scheme you come up with has to answer that issues.
And you haven't answered it yet.
Quote:
Following your logic, we should have never replaced the telegraph. After all, there is nothing technically wrong with it. But better, easier, and "fairer" methods of communications have come along, so we replaced it. Same thing with the electoral college. It served its purpose when it was created, but it disenfranchises too many voters today and it makes no sense to continue it use when better voting methods have come along.
The EC disenfranchises nobody. It gives you more power because if you do politics right, you usually have more ability to affect change close to you than farther from you.
The only way "your vote doesn't count" is, basically, if you're weird for the place you live. You think one way, everyone else in your state thinks another way, and you're looking for some way to override the way everyone else thinks without actually convincing them that your thoughts are better.
The thing is: You're wrong. You don't have a moral right to override them with external power if you can't persuade them to think the way you do.
You need to move to the place where people think like you, if it's that important to you.
"Fairer" is a matter of opinion, what you see as unfair I see working as intended. The Senate, Electoral College and equal vote for each state to amend the Constitution were not by accident. They were very well aware of how majority could stomp on minority, those 3 things help insure that does not happen. The ultimate power of this country lies with the states as intended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by walker1962
It is OBVIOUSLY flawed because it essentially disenfranchises voters in large states in favor of smaller ones because of its winner takes all metric! If it was proportional voting, Trump NEVER wins because, for example, in a state with 30 electoral college votes but where he wins 51% he gets say 16 votes not 30. Texas would have been much more important to Clinton. At a minimum, winner take all state wins should only be allowed if one candidate can get 60% or more of that state's voting total.
Walkier1962, you basically don't understand what thecoalman said, because what you consider "the flaw" is precisely what the EC is intended to do--and does.
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.
