Electoral College Debate

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by lucky8, Jul 27, 2008.

  1. lucky8

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    17
    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?
     
  2. D_Bob_Crotchitch

    D_Bob_Crotchitch New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2006
    Messages:
    8,498
    Likes Received:
    18
    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.
     
  3. lucky8

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    17
    Gender:
    Male
    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?
     
  4. SpeedoGuy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,229
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    I understand how it works but never grasped why the electoral college is necessary only for presidential elections and no others.
     
  5. D_Bob_Crotchitch

    D_Bob_Crotchitch New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2006
    Messages:
    8,498
    Likes Received:
    18
    I prefer it the way it is now. It keeps overly populated areas from completely controlling the election.
     
  6. mattbuddy

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2007
    Messages:
    373
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    129
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Denver
    Verified:
    Photo
    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:
     
  7. D_Bob_Crotchitch

    D_Bob_Crotchitch New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2006
    Messages:
    8,498
    Likes Received:
    18
    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.
     
  8. kalipygian

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,982
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    alaska
    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.
     
  9. D_Bob_Crotchitch

    D_Bob_Crotchitch New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2006
    Messages:
    8,498
    Likes Received:
    18
    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.
     
    #9 D_Bob_Crotchitch, Jul 27, 2008
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2008
  10. b.c.

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    9,305
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1,686
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home
    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.
     
  11. D_Bob_Crotchitch

    D_Bob_Crotchitch New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2006
    Messages:
    8,498
    Likes Received:
    18
    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.
     
  12. b.c.

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    9,305
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1,686
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home
    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.
     
  13. D_Bob_Crotchitch

    D_Bob_Crotchitch New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2006
    Messages:
    8,498
    Likes Received:
    18
    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.
     
  14. b.c.

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    9,305
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1,686
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home
    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.
     
  15. D_Bob_Crotchitch

    D_Bob_Crotchitch New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2006
    Messages:
    8,498
    Likes Received:
    18
    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.
     
  16. D_Gunther Snotpole

    D_Gunther Snotpole Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    14,610
    Likes Received:
    5
    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.
     
  17. SpeedoGuy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,229
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    That's what its always seemed to me: an extra layer of complication without any clear benefit.
     
  18. Jason

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    9,936
    Likes Received:
    644
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    London (GB)
    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).
     
  19. b.c.

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    9,305
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1,686
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home

    uh, i think that's what i said.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted