Electoral College Debate

lucky8

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Posts
3,623
Media
0
Likes
187
Points
193
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
The Electoral College

It seems there are a ton of people here that don't really know how the voting system in America actually works. If you don't really have knowledge of the electoral college and how it works, I suggest reading the above link for some oversight before making remarks like "more people will vote for this candidate so he is going to win." That simply isn't true.

This is an interesting topic that has been plagueing my brain since Poli. Sci. class in high school. The electoral college debate has been going on for centuries, and I'm curious as to what people here think about it. I'm kind of up in the air about this issue. On one hand, I feel that yes, every American should have a say in the presidency because we are a democratic nation and I want my vote to count, but on the other hand, I don't think uneducated people should be able to vote, espeically the ones voting for a candidate because he's "cute." So my question to everyone here is this: Should every vote count, including the people who vote just because they can? Or should we elect educated officials to determine who our leader will be (like we do now), in turn going against what many Americans believe to be democracy?
 

D_Bob_Crotchitch

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Posts
8,252
Media
0
Likes
106
Points
193
Electing educated people to choose the leader is an elitist form of government. Have you seen how many educated idiots there are running around? The election process was set up to make the country a democratic republic. Democratic so that they people would retain the power. Republic to prevent mob rule.
 

lucky8

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Posts
3,623
Media
0
Likes
187
Points
193
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Electing educated people to choose the leader is an elitist form of government. Have you seen how many educated idiots there are running around? The election process was set up to make the country a democratic republic. Democratic so that they people would retain the power. Republic to prevent mob rule.

Ya, sort of. The electoral college was generally made for two reasons though: 1) population differences between states and 2) many of the founding fathers were concerned that many voters would not have good knowledge about the candidates they were voting for. So what do you think? Should the electoral college be abolished or modified, or should it be kept the way it is?
 

mattbuddy

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 15, 2007
Posts
367
Media
11
Likes
213
Points
363
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
This is an issue that is very interesting, I agree with you. I feel like my vote doesn't actually count for anything thanks to the electoral college. I mean, I will still vote 100%, but I know that it's not going anywhere. If the electoral college didn't exist we would have had Al Gore as presdient because President Bush lost to him in the popular vote, but because of the electoral college Bush won in 2000. So I think it should be taken away. I just feel like my vote doesn't count....yes in November they will show what the people want with their popular vote, but they will still go off of the few people who represent each state, which I think is really not fair to us as the voters of this country. :dunno:
 

kalipygian

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Posts
1,948
Media
31
Likes
139
Points
193
Age
68
Location
alaska
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
It probably made some sense in the eighteenth c, things are very different, it serves no valid purpose now and should be abolished. Other than being a plum for a couple of old and reliable party hacks who get appointed in each state.

People are supposed to be equally represented in a democracy, not empty square miles.

It is not likely that a constitutional amendment to abolish it will get anywhere, as the process would require the states who would lose out to vote for it.

I was disappointed that people didn't riot and prevent W. from taking office, I do not consider him to be legitimate.
 

D_Bob_Crotchitch

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Posts
8,252
Media
0
Likes
106
Points
193
How come peeps keep forgetting we are meant to be a Democratic Republic not a flat out democracy. Mob rule tramples the rights of individuals. That is why I was floored when Bill Clinton stated to the press that people in this country worry too much about individual rights. That is the back bone of our freedom.
 
Last edited:

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
It is still the best way to help keep states with lower population levels represented. Otherwise, the candidates would hit the large metro areas and not give a damn about the rest of us.

Yes that's true but candidates still tend to do that anyway, placing emphasis on states with the highest number of electoral votes.

My biggest problem with it is the possibility that a candidate can get the higher popular vote yet still lose the election, and that electors from a state do have some options to go against the popular vote of the state that they represent (which is what some Clinton supporters are still counting on this Democratic convention).

Seems like a lot of hubbub that can be solved by a simple direct vote of the people.
 

D_Bob_Crotchitch

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Posts
8,252
Media
0
Likes
106
Points
193
for the most part, it's worked fine for hundreds of years. The main reason for the screaming is people still whining over al gore. It happened. move on. I had hoped he'd win. Then, peeps would either be facing the truth about their own bad economic decisions or they'd blame him. I am so tired of people like my bro who spends irresponsibly, and uses our senile dad as a money tree.
 

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
for the most part, it's worked fine for hundreds of years. The main reason for the screaming is people still whining over al gore. It happened. move on. I had hoped he'd win. Then, peeps would either be facing the truth about their own bad economic decisions or they'd blame him. I am so tired of people like my bro who spends irresponsibly, and uses our senile dad as a money tree.

Well I wasn't thinking of Al Gore when I wrote it. It just seems a cumbersome and potentially flawed concept to me.

Hell, the horse and buggy worked fine for hundreds of years too.
 

D_Bob_Crotchitch

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Posts
8,252
Media
0
Likes
106
Points
193
The only reason people want it changed is the battle over control. They have an agenda they want come hell or high water. The Constitution is constantly being trampled on. Other nations teach about it but teach that it's not practiced in the United States anymore. One such man lives in Iraq. I remember reading an interview with him.
 

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
The only reason people want it changed is the battle over control. They have an agenda they want come hell or high water. The Constitution is constantly being trampled on. Other nations teach about it but teach that it's not practiced in the United States anymore. One such man lives in Iraq. I remember reading an interview with him.

Well, I don't know about "people" or "control". It just seems to me that the best and simplest way for an election to most accurately reflect the "will of the people" (or at least the ones who bother to vote) is by direct vote.

Has nothing to do with "trampling the Constitution". The Constitution has built in "fixes" (called Amendments) that our founding fathers had the foresight to put in, because they realized that it had to be a living breathing document that grew, changed, and evolved (over time) in pace with a nation.

Furthermore, the debate over the Electoral College is nothing new, not as a result of Al Gore or of people wanting "control". It has been going on since its inception.
 

D_Bob_Crotchitch

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Posts
8,252
Media
0
Likes
106
Points
193
It hasn't been going on at this level in a long time. The other time that the issue was a problem was when Hayes defeated Cleveland. The bill of rights had to be adopted or Virginia was not going to ratify the Constitution. A group of ministers notified James Madison that they'd lead a fight against it from the pulpit.

The will of the people isn't always honored now. Look how much the judicial branch has legislated over the will of the majority of people in the nation. Plus, you are still pushing will of majority. Look how absolutely stupid the people are who make up a large portion of the population.
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
The Electoral College was to save democracy from its own excesses.
Voting for intelligent civic-minded people who would then choose the president kept the ultimate choice in the hands of more competent people.
But when voters vote for Electors who are pledged to vote a particular way, then that advantage is completely lost.
All that happens is that the choosing of a president becomes procedurally cluttered.
Not only is the upside of having an Electoral College severely compromised, but, as we saw in 2000, the College may wind up choosing a president who was not the most popular choice among the population at large.
So the College not only fails to protect democracy from its own excesses ... but on occasion produces results that defy democratic principles.
If you didn't have an Electoral College, you'd never believe you were missing anything.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
... on the other hand, I don't think uneducated people should be able to vote, espeically the ones voting for a candidate because he's "cute."

This has been a centuries-long debate in Britain. and is the standard problem with any democracy - the most important decisions are determined by average people, and the average is ill-educated, ill-informed, and very likely to vote on prejudice. The intellectual average in Britain reads the newspaper "The Sun", which is a dire tabloid with minimal news coverage and a topless lady on page 3 (every day). If you stop and think about it, it is pretty frightening that this is the intellectual level that is determining our government. "The Sun" manages to support the winners at just about every election. The day after John Major was elected PM (a very close election) they went with the headline "It woz The Sun wot won it", and shockingly they may even be correct.

The British problem is that we get the government that the ill-educated and ill-informed vote for, witness our present shambles. Part of me would live a selective franchise of people who actually know something about what they are voting for. But in practice we have to put up with democracy, a terrible system until you stop and think about the alternatives.

The next election is going to be fought on how much people dislike Labour, and all Cameron and the Conservatives have to do is look like a sympathetic alternative that approves of naked ladies on page 3 of the daily papers. In the end this will be the level of debate (and right now people dislike Labour a lot).