US Citizens - The Electoral College

[Azrile]

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.

Ben Franklin´s famous line ´ Democracy sounds like a great idea until you talk to the average voter´.

The founding father´s never envisioned a house of representatives where each elected person had 10 aids who all earn more than double the national average. The House of Representatives was supposed to be more like the Army Reserve..

[Daelak]

Third-party in the non political sense.

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

Yes and the house of representatives have way to much power over their constituencies, a perversion of what the founders intended.

[Elegiac]

Ben Franklin´s famous line ´ Democracy sounds like a great idea until you talk to the average voter´.

The founding father´s never envisioned a house of representatives where each elected person had 10 aids who all earn more than double the national average. The House of Representatives was supposed to be more like the Army Reserve..

Which if it were the case would make them terribly hypocritical because the Founders were all firmly bourgeois.

High pay for representatives is an incentive for educated people of means.

---------- Post added 2012-10-08 at 02:27 PM ----------

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.

Every state gets two; so Rhode Island has the same political power as California despite not having even a fifth of its population.

[Daelak]

Third-party in the non political sense.

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

I think you should go back and read your revered federalist papers 55 and 56 they advocate for 1 rep. per 30,000.

[Elegiac]

I think you should go back and read your revered federalist papers 55 and 56 they advocate for 1 rep. per 30,000.

And you're taking their statements out of context. 30,000 was a -lot- for the late eighteenth century.

[Daelak]

Which if it were the case would make them terribly hypocritical because the Founders were all firmly bourgeois.

High pay for representatives is an incentive for educated people of means.

---------- Post added 2012-10-08 at 02:27 PM ----------



Every state gets two; so Rhode Island has the same political power as California despite not having even a fifth of its population.

The house of representatives is the counter to the senatorial reps.

---------- Post added 2012-10-08 at 09:31 PM ----------

And you're taking their statements out of context. 30,000 was a -lot- for the late eighteenth century.

I think you should read the papers again Didactic, you are getting a little rusty.

[Elegiac]

The house of representatives is the counter to the senatorial reps.[COLOR="red"]

I think you should read the papers again Didactic, you are getting a little rusty.

And I think you should leave well enough alone. How about fixing the apathy and stupidity of the average American?

[Daelak]

And you're taking their statements out of context. 30,000 was a -lot- for the late eighteenth century.

The large and growing states will force the continued growth of the house. It will be the interest of the large and growing states (i.e., Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania) to augment the representation. Only the small states (e.g., Rhode Island, Delaware), can be interested in limiting it. This factor would assure “a growing representation, according to the advance of population, and the circumstances of the country.” -Alexander Hamilton

“Does the new government render a rich man more eligible than a poor one? No. It requires no such qualification. It is bottomed on the broad and equal principle of your state constitution.” -Alexander Hamilton

“…let us weigh the objections which have been stated against the number of members proposed for the House of Representatives. It is said, in the first place, that so small a number cannot be safely trusted with so much power. The number of which this branch of the legislature is to consist, at the outset of the government, will be sixty five. Within three years a census is to be taken, when the number may be augmented to one for every thirty thousand inhabitants; and within every successive period of ten years the census is to be renewed, and augmentations may continue to be made under the above limitation. It will not be thought an extravagant conjecture that the first census will, at the rate of one for every thirty thousand, raise the number of representatives to at least one hundred. … At the expiration of twenty-five years, according to the computed rate of increase, the number of representatives will amount to two hundred, and of fifty years, to four hundred. This is a number which, I presume, will put an end to all fears arising from the smallness of the body. I take for granted here what I shall, in answering the fourth objection, hereafter show, that the number of representatives will be augmented from time to time in the manner provided by the Constitution.”

Excerpt from Federalist paper #55

[SirPiken]

[QUOTE=Didactic;18682413] the Founders were all firmly bourgeois.[COLOR="red"]
This term is really meaningless when discussing American politics. Also it's primarily a term associated with Marxist thought, using it is usually tipping your cards, at least as exposing your political affiliation goes. It may not be the case this time, but it always reads that way to me.

[Reeve]

I'd like to see the Electoral College go away. I don't think it provides meaningful checks and balances, and I think it distorts our political system. The candidates don't have to worry about the needs of Californians or Texans or New Yorkers because they already know the way those states are going to vote. They do, however, have to disproportionately care what the demographics in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc. are worried about because those states are all "in play." Presidential candidates should have to be concerned with America as a whole, not with Battleground States.

Also, the whole deal where if a candidate doesn't receive 270 electoral votes the House of Representatives decides is terrible. It basically means that if there's ever a serious 3rd party candidate contender, it hands the presidency to whichever party happens to be in control of the House of Representatives.

[drukai]

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.

There are many states with growing populations on either side of party lines. WA state for one has a growing conservative base, and yet they don't get presidential representation. Texas has a growing liberal population. Swing states are by and large the biggest issue here. These are states where it can go either way, and yet there isn't always a clear winner on these sides, and yet the vote goes either way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ga...a_bycounty.png

is a great map detailing that not every blue state is not as blue as it looks. College towns, port cities and metropolitan areas trend towards a democrat vote, but we still use some antiquated system. As for the concept of checks and balances, there is no check/balance on a federal level, the Electorate can choose who their state votes for, no matter the majority.

And tyranny of the majority? Really? The vocal minority stops pretty much everything progressive ever moving forward at a decent rate, those are the real tyrants.

[Zoranon]

And tyranny of the majority? Really? The vocal minority stops pretty much everything progressive ever moving forward at a decent rate, those are the real tyrants.

That was the idea behind the entire constitution, to prevent the majority from lording over the minority. This whole concept actually started with Aristoteles and his warning of democracy turning to ochlocracy.

Electoral college still works exactly as was intended by the founders. And any way, the campaign spending would be highly localised anyway. If there was no popular college, both candidates would focus on the biggest population centres, essentially disenfranchising the smaller states and the countryside.

[drukai]

That was the idea behind the entire constitution, to prevent the majority from lording over the minority. This whole concept actually started with Aristoteles and his warning of democracy turning to ochlocracy.

Electoral college still works exactly as was intended by the founders. And any way, the campaign spending would be highly localised anyway. If there was no popular college, both candidates would focus on the biggest population centres, essentially disenfranchising the smaller states and the countryside.

It's not a popular college though, it never has been. More importantly, candidates tend to avoid certain states anyways, depending on which side they fall on. In the last 4 elections there were 15 states that went republican for all 4 elections, and 17 states that went democrat for all 4 elections.

Those 15 states combined add up to less than California and New York combined, leaving 15 states that are a pure blue lead, but even in California and New York there are pockets of right leaning voters.

You (and most of the people who support the electoral college) are overlooking the fact that not everyone in NY, or Texas, or California, or Florida swings the way the rest of their state does. You could break it down county by county, but that could potentially lead to county line shifts and it could cause a severe shift in voting power.

In either case you are disenfranchising individuals, but I would argue that a popular vote would PROMOTE visiting areas that are more swingy than others.

[Zarc]

Many interesting comments in this thread, and also stereotypically American.

I will never understand why Americans so fiercly speak of what the "intentions of the founding fathers" were or what the Constitution says. Why should people who died 200 years ago have a say in how you live your lives or how you shape your society today? Who cares if the Electoral college "still works exacly as was intended by the founders"? Make up your own opinion on how you would like things to work and join a party that share your views. If you cannot find any party that is close enough to your own views find other people who share your views and create a new party and start campaigning for representation in the legislature. Then start changing the laws. Drop the winner-takes-all electoral district system for proportional representation and your two-party system will naturally die in favor of a multi-party system that will more accurately reflect the diversity of American society.

[Elegiac]

This term is really meaningless when discussing American politics. Also it's primarily a term associated with Marxist thought, using it is usually tipping your cards, at least as exposing your political affiliation goes. It may not be the case this time, but it always reads that way to me.

Bourgeois is a term that has been around since the late Middle Ages, point of fact.

[Orlong]

I like the Electoral college. Its keeps the elections more fair since about a 3rd of the population lives in New York, Chicago, Houston, and LA. It keeps those 4 cities from being the only ones to decide an election. The college limits the power of their votes to the maximum amount of delegates from their states

[belfpala]

I like the Electoral college. Its keeps the elections more fair since about a 3rd of the population lives in New York, Chicago, Houston, and LA. It keeps those 4 cities from being the only ones to decide an election. The college limits the power of their votes to the maximum amount of delegates from their states

Isn't it only about 17 million in those four cities? Or are you counting their entire metro areas? Even then, I doubt it's even close to 1/3.

And, even though I think you're incorrect in your assessment, you'd be happy with making some people's votes count less? Mmhmm.

[Orlong]

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.

I think it would be much better if they were NOT all lawyers and executives. What we need in government is more coal miners, farmers, auto mechanics, and plumbers who care about the country more than lining their own pockets and so the every day man is represented well.

---------- Post added 2012-10-08 at 07:43 PM ----------

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

Small states SHOULD be empowered. New York, California, and Texas shouldnt be the only states that point the direction of the country. They do that enough already. Ironically Alaska (our biggest state) has virtually no representation according to their size.

[Elegiac]

I think it would be much better if they were NOT all lawyers and executives. What we need in government is more coal miners, farmers, auto mechanics, and plumbers who care about the country more than lining their own pockets and so the every day man is represented well.

Such people lack the education necessary for running a government. Working class men and women are too wrapped up in the business of simply existing to do as such.

[bayushisan]

I think that the electoral college is still a necessary thing. Yes it makes sure that the candidates only campaign in swing states but having a popular vote election would skew the electoral power as well, just in different states.