US Citizens - The Electoral College

[drukai]

In the US we have the Electoral College. It's a piece of legislature designed when the vote was actually transported between states because there was no telephone or internet. Well, now we have telephones and the internet, but we still have the Electoral College. It needs to be removed, as it causes certain states to become more important than others in the Presidential race, it also makes 3rd party elections nearly impossible. It negatively affects people of all political opinions, and there is zero upside anymore.

http://wh.gov/KZiM

I've gone ahead and started a petition to have it removed, but I need to hit 25,000 votes in less than a month! If you agree with me and are a US citizen, please, sign on board, share this link with anyone and everyone, and lets make miracles happen. This is not something that will weaken the country, it will help us grow, and it will give us a more accurate representation of the Presidential vote... and to top it off, it might just mean you no longer have to vote for the guy you like less!

[Daelak]

In the US we have the Electoral College. It's a piece of legislature designed when the vote was actually transported between states because there was no telephone or internet. Well, now we have telephones and the internet, but we still have the Electoral College. It needs to be removed, as it causes certain states to become more important than others in the Presidential race, it also makes 3rd party elections nearly impossible. It negatively affects people of all political opinions, and there is zero upside anymore.

http://wh.gov/KZiM

I've gone ahead and started a petition to have it removed, but I need to hit 25,000 votes in less than a month! If you agree with me and are a US citizen, please, sign on board, share this link with anyone and everyone, and lets make miracles happen. This is not something that will weaken the country, it will help us grow, and it will give us a more accurate representation of the Presidential vote... and to top it off, it might just mean you no longer have to vote for the guy you like less!

While you are at it, make a petition to increase the amount of representatives we have in the house. 435 is a disgrace to the founders intentions, and it gives them way to much power. 1 representative per 700,000 citizens is not a responsive government.

[Elegiac]

While you are at it, make a petition to increase the amount of representatives we have in the house. 435 is a disgrace to the founders intentions, and it gives them way to much power. 1 representative per 700,000 citizens is not a responsive government.

The Founders designed the American government with checks and balances on the People as well, point of fact.

[Daelak]

The Founders designed the American government with checks and balances on the People as well, point of fact.

435 people holding that much power is the complete opposite what the founders intended. we need at least 3,000 representatives to increase representation.

[drukai]

435 people holding that much power is the complete opposite what the founders intended. we need at least 3,000 representatives to increase representation.

I absolutely agree that there isn't enough, but... lets go one step at a time shall we?

[Elegiac]

435 people holding that much power is the complete opposite what the founders intended. we need at least 3,000 representatives to increase representation.

"What the Founders intended" is probably one of the most violated phrases I've ever heard in American politics, primarily because it's used by people with no grasp of history of political science.

American government was created as a balance between Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian ideals; the former designed to maximize liberty and empower the common man, the latter designed to restrict it for the general welfare. Congress' size is symptomatic of the latter.

[Joathen]

We should have fewer representatives; in an age where the feelings and opinions of the people can more easily be conveyed (internet, telephone, social media, high urban population,) there is no reason to have so many. Also, reduce their pay and remove the life-long pensions and benefits, civil service was intended to be a sacrafice for the good of society.

[Elegiac]

We should have fewer representatives; in an age where the feelings and opinions of the people can more easily be conveyed (internet, telephone, social media, high urban population,) there is no reason to have so many. Also, reduce their pay and remove the life-long pensions and benefits, civil service was intended to be a sacrafice for the good of society.

High pay is necessary to attract educated people of means to government service. Your policy is why the educational system in America is in the can at the moment.

[Daelak]

"What the Founders intended" is probably one of the most violated phrases I've ever heard in American politics, primarily because it's used by people with no grasp of history of political science.

American government was created as a balance between Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian ideals; the former designed to maximize liberty and empower the common man, the latter designed to restrict it for the general welfare. Congress' size is symptomatic of the latter.

The founders wanted a representative government, they didn't want one representative representing 700,000 citizens. That does not maximize liberty or promote the general welfare, it gives asymmetrical power to one house. They should be citizen-representatives, not full time congressmen.

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/

[Elegiac]

The founders wanted a representative government, they didn't want one representative representing 700,000 citizens. That does not maximize liberty or promote the general welfare, it gives asymmetrical power to one house. They should be citizen-representatives, not full time congressmen.

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/

Too much democracy is bad for the general welfare, not enough of it leads to calcified tyrannies. The Founders understood this and framed the government in this way for a reason. I'm sure Hamilton and his colleagues would have been happy with one representative per million citizens.

This government is representative as it is.

[Elegiac]

Daelak, I would recommend reading Federalist Paper #10, parts of it talk about how having too much democracy could be a bad thing, really quite a good read.

Don't bother. Look how few people actually know what the Articles of Confederation are without the aid of wikipedia.

[Daelak]

Too much democracy is bad for the general welfare, not enough of it leads to calcified tyrannies. The Founders understood this and framed the government in this way for a reason. I'm sure Hamilton and his colleagues would have been happy with one representative per million citizens.

This government is representative as it is.

No, if you go to the group's website you will see what they wrote about the house of representatives and the representation. They wanted 1 representative per 30,000 citizens.

You want to actively keep representation down of your fellow citizens, even when people in our country want more representation and so did the founders.

---------- Post added 2012-10-08 at 09:11 PM ----------

Don't bother. Look how few people actually know what the Articles of Confederation are without the aid of wikipedia.

Why would any founder want less representation than what we have now?

[belfpala]

No, if you go to the group's website you will see what they wrote about the house of representatives and the representation. They wanted 1 representative per 30,000 citizens.

But the constitution simply sets the maximum number at 1 per 30,000. It says nothing about the lower boundary, other than that the House exists.

[Elegiac]

No, if you go to the group's website you will see what they wrote about the house of representatives and the representation. They wanted 1 representative per 30,000 citizens.

You want to actively keep representation down of your fellow citizens, even when people in our country want more representation and so did the founders.

Sorry, I don't take crazy third party websites as valid evidence.

Pretty much. I'm a republican in the strict sense of the word; democracy is not appealing to me to a large extent.

Why would any founder want less representation than what we have now?

Because a great many of the Founders distrusted the common people.

[Daelak]

Don't bother. Look how few people actually know what the Articles of Confederation are without the aid of wikipedia.

"The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary."

-Federalist Paper #10.

That's weird, the paper you "recommended" I read advocated exactly what I am advocating. More representation in the house will diffuse the power the 435 have now. This will keep our system of checks and balances in order, because right now, the HoR has asymmetrically more power over their own constituencies.

---------- Post added 2012-10-08 at 09:23 PM ----------

But the constitution simply sets the maximum number at 1 per 30,000. It says nothing about the lower boundary, other than that the House exists.

Well we should institute the lower bound. It will bring more power to the constituents of the districts.

[Elegiac]

"The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary."

-Federalist Paper #10.

That's weird, the paper you "recommended" I read advocated exactly what I am advocating. More representation in the house will diffuse the power the 435 have now. This will keep our system of checks and balances in order, because right now, the HoR has asymmetrically more power over their own constituencies.

I would be more concerned about the Senate and how it artificially empowers smaller states.

[Daelak]

Sorry, I don't take crazy third party websites as valid evidence.

Pretty much. I'm a republican in the strict sense of the word; democracy is not appealing to me to a large extent.



Because a great many of the Founders distrusted the common people.

It isn't a third party. It is a petition to increase the amount of representatives in government. The US is both a republic and a democracy. More representatives = more republic.

[SirPiken]

and there is zero upside anymore.

Just because a state has a lower population doesn't mean it it less important. The Electoral College balances out the power of the states. This keeps the country from becoming a tyranny of the majority.

The United states is a very large country, it would be unfair for the more populated coasts to be able to for all intents and purposes pick the president every time simply because they have a higher population density.

TLDR; checks and balances as others have already stated.

[Elegiac]

It isn't a third party. It is a petition to increase the amount of representatives in government. The US is both a republic and a democracy. More representatives = more republic.

Third-party in the non political sense.

No. More representatives = more democracy. Republicanism is hinged upon the concentration of power.

[Daelak]

I would be more concerned about the Senate and how it artificially empowers smaller states.

No, every state gets 2, so in the upper house they all have an equal say and power. That is not the case in the lower house, the representatives, who hold immense power over many citizens.