The question is would you vote to abolish the Electoral College?


http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3379&stc=1

Why would I vote to allow nine states -- with the majority of the national population -- to decide everything for the other 41 states?

We're supposed to be a Federated Republic, not a banana republic.

So, no. Two thumbs down.

Mr. G,

As is only a few states decide our fate (swing states) it would not be much different if we got rid of the electoral college. Also we would still be a Republic even if we switch our presidential voting system to the populace, heck we vote for our senate and house members by popular vote why not the president?

I don't support abolishing the Electoral collage, however some reforms might make things more democratic. For instance, if we could, perhaps set up the votes per-state to be distributed acording to a certain ratio depending on how much of the vote this or that candidate got, vs. just giving all the votes for one state to the guy who gets the most votes. I know I sure as hell am not going to be happy when my vote is essentialy thrown out to give all of Arizona's votes to Bush.

Mystech,

I argee with that only because it would be much easier to implement then abolishing the Electoral College. Even so it unlikely things will change:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002069772_electoral22.html

Why is there an electoral college anyway? I always thought decisions made based on popular votes were more accurate, reflecting what the voters really wants.

27 posts to go!

Why is there an electoral college anyway? I always thought decisions made based on popular votes were more accurate, reflecting what the voters really wants.

27 posts to go!

Well think of it this way. Say we had a world government. . . would you be too happy if the president of the world was always Chinese? The idea is mainly to lessen the advantage that more populous states have, and give a bit more power to the smaller states.

Personally I like Colorado's idea of giving an electoral vote to a candidate who wins in a congressional district. That seems a lot more representative to me, and a whole lot more democratic!

The electoral college system was invented before party politics became commonplace, and in a time when most people did not vote. Initially, electors were elected by the state legislators, not the general population. The aim was to give each state a say in the Presidency.

Depending on which side of the fence you come down on, it is either a good or a bad thing that the electoral college system gives small states a greater say in the Presidency than their populations would allow in a direct popular election. In effect, people who live in less populous states count for more than those who live in more populous states, under this system.

The issue in the end is what kind of federal system you want to have.

The idea is mainly to lessen the advantage that more populous states have, and give a bit more power to the smaller states.

That's what I don't get. Why can't there be a grand tally? Ya make it sound like each state looks at each of the votes by their own residents and make a decision. What I always thought would be the best system was to count the votes together as one.

21 posts to go!

why not just have the president elected by parliment?

or better yet why not have him BE a member of parliment?

The electoral college takes the vothing power away from the people. But then again people are stupid.

why not just have the president elected by parliment?

or better yet why not have him BE a member of parliment?

Was that sarcasm?

19 posts to go!

Anybody who feels a bit slighted or thinks the EC is a relic from a bygone era needs to read Math Against Tyranny (http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/electoralmath.htm).

Also, I agree with Mystech.

i was being seriouse

our leader is a member of parliment and it works well. The electrets are moved around so that they hold a representive number of people in each and every electret gets one seat. the party with the most seats makes up the goverment and the head of the goverment is the PM


what is so bad about that system????

we never have issues about cheating or rigging the election. Just complaining about how bloody stupid australians are for voting for howard

That's true for the Australian House of Representatives, Asguard, but not true for the Senate. The Senate is elected on a statewide basis, which is kind of similar to the electoral college system in the US. That is, small states like Tasmania get a say in the Senate which is proportionally greater than large states such as New South Wales.

The Australian system was modelled in many ways on the US system, except that we don't have a separate executive branch of government. Our Senate was meant to be a "states house" orginally, but since party politics have taken over, that's not really how it works these days.

It's time to consider canning the college. (The "however" turned out to be irrelevant.)

An interesting article, Stokes. But the benefit of the college that Napatoff seems to be protecting seems to exist in the abstract.

Doesn't talk of increasing or decreasing the power of one's vote overlook the principle that each vote is supposed to be equal?

Of course, there is an obscure reason that I can't recall at present that prevents me from committing to the idea that the college ought to be done away with. I'll try to dig it up.

(Note on edit: Found it. The reason, it turns out, was cynicism (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=515896):

This is not a democracy. It never has been.

Do we want it to be? Do we really want to demand that this generation of legislative minds gather and tinker with our Constitution?

http://www.bartcop.com/bo041021.gif

I don't support abolishing the Electoral collage, however some reforms might make things more democratic. For instance, if we could, perhaps set up the votes per-state to be distributed acording to a certain ratio depending on how much of the vote this or that candidate got, vs. just giving all the votes for one state to the guy who gets the most votes. I know I sure as hell am not going to be happy when my vote is essentialy thrown out to give all of Arizona's votes to Bush.

This is what Colorado is currently attempting to do. Divide their 9 votes by popular vote. That is a step in the right direction but is still subject to these ratio which allows some citizens to be able to enter the voting booth almost 4 times!!!

Further to use the Electoral College in any form seems an absolute waste. You are electing people to vote for President, not voting for President. There is no legal obligation that those Electoral Representatives vote in any particular way.

You can vote for representatives to vote for President but you are not assured that they will vote for the candidate you personally want.!!!!

It is down right stupid. (My opinion).

Our system of two Houses, Congress for the peoples popular vote and the Senate for the States is a good one. We don't need states protected more than that. The President should be the peoples choice on a 1/1 vote.

I am from Texas and I fail to see why somebody from Wyoming should get to vote 4 times to my 1!!!

Notice that Wash D.C. get to vote 3.5 times. Maybe that is why it is impossible to get it changed. :D

Perhaps the merging of States Rights and Peoples Rights is best served by the Colorado approach. I would be much in favor of at least going that far.

None of the two parties like this because the electoral college forcesthe bipartisan system.

It'll never happen.

The America electoral system is rigged and un-democratic no different from any of the other advanced Western nations. The American system is non-representative of its citizen’s popular wishes. I will give examples from past elections, of the popular vote count and the allocation of electoral vote. In the 1980 election Reagan received 50.75% of the vote but received 90.9% of the electoral vote? This insanity of under representation went further in the 1984 election when Reagan received 58.77% of the vote but received 97.6% of the electoral votes whilst Mondale received 40.56% of the popular vote but only 2.6% of the electoral votes! How democratic is that? but the biggest scam was the 2000 election Bush received 50,459,624 whilst Gore received 51,003,238 so the man who received 546,614 votes LESS now runs the country ! The logic is crystal clear if America held multi party elections where the outcome was a proportional representation of the voters choice, then your goverment would not be acting with impunity against the wishes of its people.

I am not in favor of abolishing the electoral system.
I do think it is in drastic need of reform though, as is our general election system.

If the electoral college was abandoned, The rights of states would soon follow. The college is a check to balance a totalitarian nation. Sweeping changes to individual states could be mandated by the executive with no repurcussions. Why would smaller states ever be considered by the national power structure? Sure you can argue that that is the case now, that is why reform is in order. But the theory is sound imo.

I hardly see how abolishing the electoral college would cause suh a slippery slope, senaters and house repersentives are elected by the public, why not the president, I can't see who that small change could cause such dratic side effects. As is only a handful of state actually matter in a presidental election, by going populace it would just move power from some states to others.

People elect their state's Senators and their House Representatives.

States elect the President.

Again, the US's founding fathers felt a Federated Republic to be less subject to the tyranny of the masses' popular vote.

What's popular today is probably not what's popular tomorrow.

National, rational consistancy requires distancing whim from necessity.

Again, the US's founding fathers felt a Federated Republic to be less subject to the tyranny of the masses' popular vote.

What is the tyranny of voting for president?

the elector college was created:
1. because they did not trust the mass populace
2. to equlize power from one state to another, yes we are a republic not a democracy.

a 200+ year old goverment like ours in infact atiquated.

(Note on edit: Found it. The reason, it turns out, was cynicism (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=515896):And well warranted at that. Do you really want to entrust a broad, subjective interpretation of the Constitution to any of our current political figures? I hardly go as far as to trust the SCOTUS with it. The only folks who believe the "living document" theory didn't earn their history, or have an agenda.

The electorial college should have been abolished four years ago after the last election..........

Atta Boy

If there were no electoral college.

There would be next to no debate on base closings, Alaska would become as cash strapped as Montana, all rural Americans would be marginalized and city dwellers pandered to, the top 20 cities in America would decide elections, DC would have no voice in the gov't, underpopulated federal roads would recieve little if any funding and no debate on toxic waste dumps or federal jails or nuclear plants.

Like it or not, the electoral college has a purpose.

If there were no electoral college.

There would be next to no debate on base closings, Alaska would become as cash strapped as Montana, all rural Americans would be marginalized and city dwellers pandered to, the top 20 cities in America would decide elections, DC would have no voice in the gov't, underpopulated federal roads would recieve little if any funding and no debate on toxic waste dumps or federal jails or nuclear plants.

Like it or not, the electoral college has a purpose.

True, and I also agree with Mystech.

Insanely Elite,

I ask again how does removing the electoral collage that simply chooses the president and nothing else lead to such a slippery slope?

As is only a handful of states are pandered to during an election, swing states with a large number of electorates, Alaska is worth nothing, Bush does not have much of a chance in California and thus you don’t see him campaigning there, Kerry does not touch the south (other then Florida were he does have chance.)

The electoral college was created because the experiment of Democracy was just that, an experiment. They were afraid the uneducated masses may elect a tyrant, and this was their backup plan. A basically educated electoral college would be the safeguard. The experiment proved a success, so now its time to get rid of the electoral college. It is a minor point, since most elections will not be effected. The positive is that the presidents must visit states more often, but only states they feel are up for grabs.

WellCookedFetus,

I see your point, that direct elections are non-disputable and firmly democratic. As has been said, this is a republic for which American stands. As a republic, the 'little' states must be given protection and accessability to power, lest the 'big' states gobble them up or use them as dumping grounds.

In a direct popular election there is no need for the executive to acknowledge any states issues(see above post).
That most states are 'slam dunk' are part of the overall problem with winner take all, two party politics. This is not permanent. The pendulum swings. Remember when the south was firmly democratic?

An interperetation of your reasoning could be," Why can't we stop the elderly,christian base, and latinos from voting". These groups are pandered to more than any other.

I said I am opposed to abolishing the college, not it's reformation.
Some common reforms are mandatory voting as the state voted ensuring electors vote correctly. And percentage system whereby the winner take all is nullified.

Election reforms are neccessary as well.
Election week instead of election day. Standardized federal paper ballots. Binding 'none of the above' so idiototic puppets may not be foisted on us. Reforming the registration process. Finance reform. Mandatory free TV time for broadcast stations as fullfilling part of their public service. Transparent debates.

The system is by no means perfect.

Do you really want to entrust a broad, subjective interpretation of the Constitution to any of our current political figures?

I don't see the connection.

As with Mr. G's point, it certainly applies to why we don't, as the people, legislate federally.

But I don't see the necessary connection to electing a president.

Likewise Insanely Elite's point, which seems to overlook Congress. And then there's the 20 largest cities? I've calculated eleven and heard the assertion of nine states deciding the election. Does it not seem odd that one can win thirty-nine of fifty states and still lose the election? I'm looking at Infoplease (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763098.html) right now, and the top 20 cities cover 13 states.

A note for Towards

One of the things that strikes me, though I'm unsure of the significance, is that being a battleground state in a presidential cycle only costs you money in terms of law enforcement and, of course, the occasional robbed bank while all the cops are out protecting the candidates. (I was surprised to not hear of that until this year; or, rather, it occurred to me when I heard about it that I didn't recall that ever happening before.)

Sure we are republic, but removing the electoral college is not going to change that.

With the electoral college only a few states get attention, it does not matter if those states change over time.

The changes you ask for as well as mine are slime if any chance of ever happening. If it were up to me we would all be voting Borda Count or a rating vote were we give points to which candidate we approve of. How parties work would be redesigned to limit their power and to have more then one party behind a candidate.

By the way Politicians are infamous for their ability to promising thing to groups and just shafting them later, so pandering to any state is nothing something I think they put to heart.

tiassa,
Turns out we're neighbors. I'm in Kenmore. Could you clarify what you mean about forgetting Congress? Seemingly Congress has forgot Congress. Line item veto, war powers, fast track treaties. I picked '20 cities' out of a hat. My point is that the paradigdm will shift from states, to metropolis'.

WCF,
I agree that reform is unlikely, less unlikely that disbanding the college. That a few states get attention is nothing compared to most states getting abandoned. When would any president go for the farmer vote? Why would any president ever go to Montana? or any of the 'little' states?

The electoral college was created because the experiment of Democracy was just that, an experiment. They were afraid the uneducated masses may elect a tyrant, and this was their backup plan. A basically educated electoral college would be the safeguard. The experiment proved a success, so now its time to get rid of the electoral college. It is a minor point, since most elections will not be effected. The positive is that the presidents must visit states more often, but only states they feel are up for grabs.


Looks like the electorial college experiment is about to fail again if it re-elects George Bush as president!

Atta Boy :)

They were afraid the uneducated masses may elect a tyrant...
And the 'educated masses' cannot?

The Electoral College exists to also deny the 'educated' elites their own natural tyranny.

To know the consequence of the rule of the popular vote is merely to observe the lop-sided character of politcal persuasions represented by the local membership list.

This place has driven off all but the most indelible of those not like yourselves.

And you also presume you can convince all others that your stripe would rule us all as if we all were of equal merit, if only the EC was abolished?

This community is amongst the best reasons why the existance of the EC is an imperative.

Electoral college was invented, in part, so we would not end up with a dictator, now it seems it makes us closer to having one.

Mr. G,

What do you mean? The Electoral College basically hands the power to the “educated” member of a party chosen as electorates!

Perhaps this is new to you but education does not mean your political opinion is of specific form, those liberal arts colleges you seem to muck so may convert some student to liberalism but there many liberal arts majors that come out conservative, you your self claim to have been though such education.

...you your self claim to have been though such education.
No. I went through a very different education.

I went through the same educational system as most of your modern day professors -- who are now educating you from their own personal, activist perspective; not mine, or that of the eduction system I once knew.

You're education isn't anything like my education was.

I've never considered asking for a tuition refund, but I have actively advised many of you to seek one.

Hmm, wonder why.

Insanely_elite,
I think there's an aspect you are missing.
The reason that candidates currently place so much focus on the "battleground" states is because all they need is a majority of the voters in a state to win all the electors in the state (except for the two splitting, and maybe Colorado).
So, if a candidate gets 51% of the Ohio votes, he gets ALL of Ohio.
Therefore, he counts up that he needs 271 votes, so he needs just the majority of thise states and EVERY VOTE againt him in that state is now nullified.
If we move to a direct vote, those dissenting votes will add up.
He can't count on the votes for his opponent disappearing, as they do now.

In a direct election system, a candidate can win the majority of ALL the battleground states and STILL lose the election.
Plus, it also means that the third party candidates can actually steal votes from the two parties.
As it stands now the left and right can completely ignore the third-party guys, because they have no chance of getting enough votes to take away their electorates.
If it were direct election, a third-party's 10 percent can make a significant difference in an election.

In fact, it would work in a candidates favor to pay a little special attention to the little guys that will sway the election.

The will have to broaden their focus, not narrow it.

Add up all the votes in the 47% that candidate A earns against the 48.5% that candidate B earns in all the battleground states (5.5% to third party and abstention).
In the electoral system, candidate B gets a LANDSLIDE victory.

In a direct-elect system? Alaska and Rhode Island could decide the outcome of that situation.

It's simply a fair system.

Mr. G,

My point is that a liberal art major does not mean your liberal or the cause of your liberalism, you your self were one as you calm any specific science major as a liberal art, now you’re a science PHD (or something like that what ever you claim) which by the way also have a unusually higher percentage of liberalism as compared to the uneducated, yet your not a liberal, so how can you blame the education as the cause of others liberalism and demean then as sheep? It the choice of the individual not there education what their political partisan is.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I want to make sure I made my point...

So, not only do the votes against you not count in the states you win, but by definition, the millions of votes you DID receive in the states you lost are thrown away in the current system.

The system of Government in the US was first concieved as more of a distributed or delegated Libertarian System than a Democracy.

It was designed to be a collection of individual self-governing States United under some common ideals.

The Executive Branch was to have no direct control over the citizens (only indirect control at the discretion of the individual states' governments on issues that affected all the states equally), and the citizens were to have no direct control over the Executive Branch.

The Executive Branch was to be little more than an arbiter for State Representatives arguing over the issues that affected all the states, and a central global representation of the unified states.

The citizens elected their state government officials to govern them directly.
The state government elected the Executive Branch to be the arbiter for those issues they felt should be handled centrally and applied to the common ideals of the country.

Presidential Elections were simply the official way to let your State Electors know how you feel.
(in some states, you can't even vote for who your State Electors will be, they are appoionted by party members within the state government)

The Federal Government was basically the UN for the States, and the President was the head lawyer.

This system worked pretty well for a while, and it was fair.
The State Governments governed us, so we elected them.
The Federal Government governed the State Governments, so they elected them.
However, as time went by the Federal Government gained more and more direct control over the citizens (thanks in large part to the Cold War), but the citizens still have only indirect control over the Federal Government through the representatives they elected.

The Electoral System is out-dated, ineffectual and unfair.
It allows the candidates ignore 1/2 the citizens.

I've never considered asking for a tuition refund, but I have actively advised many of you to seek one.

Hmm, wonder why.

Your Freudian complex.

"However, as time went by the Federal Government gained more and more direct control over the citizens (thanks in large part to the Cold War), but the citizens still have only indirect control over the Federal Government through the representatives they elected."

Thats right on. We should abolish the EC. At least reform it as they are thinking in Colorado.

The EC negates the voting power of millions. It is outdated and wrong.

one_raven,
I didn't miss this point. I thought I had clearly defined it in this thread. It is not that I fail to understand your point nor the electoral college system. I believe it is simply that we disagree. I still feel there is a purpose to the EC, some do not. Although I have tried to define and clarify my reasoning as you have, no one has challanged the validity (or lack) of those reasons.
Abolishing rationales are: outdated,ineffective,not democratic, allows for abuses, all or nothing voting tallies.

Maintaining rationales include: preserving states rights, preserving the republic of these united states, enfranchising the little states(including DC), switching the voting paradigm from states to metropolis',for more examples see my above posts.

One of the problems with this issue is that there is a lot of similar issues.
California, Texas, New York have the greatest electoral count, they also have the greatest populations. Arguments for and against bleed into another.
Also, the concept that this republic is a true democracy is simply a fallacy.

Many have mentioned the rationale that doing away with the EC would eliminate the pandering to the battleground states. As most of you know, the majority (40 or so) are slam dunk gimmees to one party or another. Although I feel this a tradgedy, what happens when there are no more battleground states? or if even more get locked up, like the gerrymandering house of reps.(90%+ at this point, peoples house my ass), so if you live in Utah, your state assembly and legislators will be Republican, guaranteed. It doesn't matter how you vote.

I think what all of us on this thread may agree to is that some form of sweeping election reform is called for. Not the paperless ballots that may yet screw the entire electorate. I do not feel that abolishing the EC is the answer.

Maintaining rationales include: preserving states rights, preserving the republic of these united states, enfranchising the little states(including DC), switching the voting paradigm from states to metropolis', for more examples see my above posts

-Abolishment of EC would not harm the rights of states. State still have there own legislation, judicial and government.
-Abolishment of EC would not destroy our republic. We would still be a republic.
-Many little states are already disenfranchised as is under the EC
-What wrong with switching the voting paradigm of the presidential election to the metropolises?

-Abolishment of EC would not harm the rights of states. State still have there own legislation, judicial and government.
-Abolishment of EC would not destroy our republic. We would still be a republic.
-Many little states are already disenfranchised as is under the EC
-What wrong with switching the voting paradigm of the presidential election to the metropolises?

Damn it! I just lost my 20 minute reply to you WCF.

In short, there is TWICE as much population in New York City, than the combined states of Montana,Alaska,Delaware,North Dakota,South Dakota,Vermont,and Wyoming. These states would be forgotten in a presidential election. Further these combined states recieve 21 electoral votes, well over 2/3 of the entire state of New Yorks allotment of 31. Clearly there is a built in protection of the least populous states.
Smaller states recieve a disporportionate amount of Electoral votes to their population, giving them a greater voice against the "tyranny of the majority"
DC would be wholly without national representation if we abandoned the EC.

insane,
"In short, there is TWICE as much population in New York City, than the combined states of Montana,Alaska,Delaware,North Dakota,South Dakota,Vermont,and Wyoming. These states would be forgotten in a presidential election. "

Forgotten? Their votes would count just as much as everyone else's. Have you seen alot of attention paid to these states this election? Has bush/kerry been making alot of treks to vermont lately?

"Smaller states recieve a disporportionate amount of Electoral votes to their population, giving them a greater voice against the "tyranny of the majority""

You mean, the majority loses? Thats what happened 4 years ago, after all. Is that what the EC is for - to make sure its harder for the majority to win? You are right in that it gives greater 'value' to the votes in some small states. If the race is tight within some arbitrary borders that constitute a 'state', your vote is much more valuable than if you are a republican voting for the hell of it in California.

"DC would be wholly without national representation if we abandoned the EC. "
Each vote would be represented the same as all other votes from all the states. What is the problem with that?

Hey fadingCaptain,

Forgotten? Their votes would count just as much as everyone else's. Have you seen alot of attention paid to these states this election? Has bush/kerry been making alot of treks to vermont lately?

But the candidates have given attention to these smaller states, that is my point. There would be NO attention whatsoever if we abandoned the EC.

You mean, the majority loses? Thats what happened 4 years ago, after all. Is that what the EC is for - to make sure its harder for the majority to win?

Again this is an argument for direct democracy. The republic must have a measure of protection for the small states to the great ones. The constitution spells this out. 4 years ago the Supreme Court halted the recount, reversing it's week old decision to let the state decide. In a 5:4 ruling the Court's dissenting opinion recieved scant press citing it's appall of the political motivations for the decision. Had a statewide recount been allowed, Gore would have won the election in Florida.

You are right in that it gives greater 'value' to the votes in some small states.

Thank you for some acknowledgement. But it is not some small states, it is all small states. over 50% of states are skewed this way. and again this shows the built in protection of states against central authority spelled out in the constitution.

If the race is tight within some arbitrary borders that constitute a 'state', your vote is much more valuable than if you are a republican voting for the hell of it in California.

The states borders are not arbitrary, I don't see your point here. Regarding the hopeless republican voting in California, I completely agree reform is in order. Not the abolition of the EC.

More math.

The 21 least populous states(including DC) have approximately the same number of citizens as the state of California. The electoral college of the constitution gives these small states 94 electoral votes to Californias 55.

Why would any president spend any time in any of these states if we abandoned the college?

"DC would be wholly without national representation if we abandoned the EC. "
Each vote would be represented the same as all other votes from all the states. What is the problem with that?
The main problem is that DC's 500,000 citizens would be diluted as part of a national democracy as opposed to a representative republic. Again, this takes power away from the locally represented power structure and diffuses it into a national direct democracy. What this will entail is the abandonment of executive responsability to minority states and realigning the entire national power structure to a few dozen cities.

Why on earth should the rural people of Wyoming, New Mexico, and Alaska have to suffer under legislation desiged to appease the people of New York, or California? What fairness is there in electing a president solely on urban issues that New Yorkers and Californians are sympathetic to? So now we're going to tax the hell out of the farmers to pay for social program X to clean up the cities? That makes no fucking sense whatsoever.

The concernes of all people are not uniform, the majority is seldom right on a national scale, and the remoteness of people does matter. That is the very reason we have States to begin with. Notice it is the United STATES of America, not the United Cities of America. The Constitution recognizes that people will form and govern their own states to their own liking, and the electoral process forces national candidates to address the state individually, and campaign them as a group. Just because the media gives the impression that information can be moved quickly and accurately doesn't change the fact that the people of Wyoming almost never interact with governmental concerns New York; so it stands to they have a right to not give a shit what goes on there.

The electoral college defends them from that. There's a lot of mechanisms in the Constitution that defend the people from that, and all most all of them are aimed at defeating the sophmoric idea of popularity (otherwise pronounced as "mob rule"). Notice how legislation, even for outlays, must get senate approval before being fowarded to the president. Same to declare war. In foreign policy, otherwise designed to be at the pleasure of the President, advice and consent of the Senate is required before it's ratified. Why? Because the Senate is in place specifically to prevent mob rule, all States are represented equally, and it eliminates populatiry contests, no matter how well executed. The electoral college does the same thing for presidental elections. It's a buffer and an equalizer. It forces candidates to address the concerns of the people with the State as their proxy. That's why we are a Constitutional Republic. We only call it a democracy by convention since it is designed to be a government represenative of the people, even though it is far from a democratic process.

Now, another issue that people are struggling with that the leadership we tend to elect these days don't live up to their responsibility. Many of them are deliberately causing problems, and others seem to be doing everything they can to solidify legislative power for one party or another. I'll grant you that they are using the system poorly and it is making some matters worse. But what you can't say is that the system is flawed. The Electoral College does exactly what it's designed to do: it breaks the mob rule. Now, presidental canidates must address the issues of the country rather than of the top 10 cities.

Insanely Elite:

All I meant by Congress is that some of your concerns fall under the realm of Congress:

There would be next to no debate on base closings, Alaska would become as cash strapped as Montana, all rural Americans would be marginalized and city dwellers pandered to, the top 20 cities in America would decide elections, DC would have no voice in the gov't, underpopulated federal roads would recieve little if any funding and no debate on toxic waste dumps or federal jails or nuclear plants.

With the exception of the top 20 cities, those points largely fall to Congress.

I do think an actual study of population and outcome in cities would prove enlightening.

Lets consider how much power a president really has, how often he makes due with such promises to groups of people or states for votes. If we switched to a popular vote then you assume that these less populated groups and states would get the shaft. I find it unlikely that the president could end up being that bias or have that much of a say. Even as is many states that don’t get as much of a say in the election don’t get fucked over.
Believe it or not our republic is not just the president, but the federal senate and house, state senate and house, state and federal judicial system, the president is not all important to the vitality of a state.
The elector college is usually a exact image of the popular vote and only in very close elections does it do the opposite of a popular vote, only 3 times in USA history has the electoral college done the opposite of the popular vote. So if we had been by the popular vote things would not have been very different.

Why on earth should the rural people of Wyoming, New Mexico, and Alaska have to suffer under legislation desiged to appease the people of New York, or California?

Two questions:

(1) How different is that compared to the present?
(2) What does legislation have to do with it?

What fairness is there in electing a president solely on urban issues that New Yorkers and Californians are sympathetic to? So now we're going to tax the hell out of the farmers to pay for social program X to clean up the cities?

Democratic fairness, if that's the way it works out. Of course, we don't live in a democracy, so there's always that.

What is the difference between "democracy" and "mob rule"? A simple matter of taste.

Perhaps we'd best get that tally, however, of how many cities it would actually take. In light of 20 cities representing 13 states, we're now arbitrarily down to 10 cities. Interesting rhetoric, but is it accurate?

As a side note, I must say this is rather amazing to me. We talk so much about spreading democracy, something we don't have to give. And since California or Texas can't raise their own armies to send in order to spread the democracy of state government, perhaps the real solution is for Americans to get used to the idea that we don't live in a democracy and never have.

All I meant by Congress is that some of your concerns fall under the realm of Congress:

This is why I said that seemingly Congress has forgotten Congress.

With the centalization of power held in the executive, everyone of these points are at least influenced by the president.

Who writes the budget? Who is allowed great lattitutude in the so called fast track trade negotiations? Who is the leader of the political party?

The executive makes decisions that overshadow our bicameral system at every turn. The president takes credit for legislation regularly!

Congressional oversight is all but evaporated, what happened to the war profiteering amendment on the Iraq reconstrution bill? Approved by both houses, dropped in commitee. Too many examples to list. This is why I continue to support the EC.

I just read Stokes article,

Interesting, yet abstract. I do like the following:

The same logic that governs our electoral system, he saw, also applies to many sports--which Americans do, intuitively, understand. In baseball’s World Series, for example, the team that scores the most runs overall is like a candidate who gets the most votes. But to become champion, that team must win the most games. In 1960, during a World Series as nail-bitingly close as that year’s presidential battle between Kennedy and Nixon, the New York Yankees, with the awesome slugging combination of Mickey Mantle, Roger Maris, and Bill "Moose" Skowron, scored more than twice as many total runs as the Pittsburgh Pirates, 55 to 27. Yet the Yankees lost the series, four games to three. Even Natapoff, who grew up in the shadow of Yankee Stadium, conceded that Pittsburgh deserved to win. "Nobody walked away saying it was unfair," he says.

We have a 51 game presidential baseball series, not a running tally of the most runs in those games.

True, but how will the elimination of the college bring these problems about?

Who writes the budget?

(1) Who should write the budget?

Who is allowed great lattitutude in the so called fast track trade negotiations?

(2) Who allowed that latitude?

Who is the leader of the political party?

Technically, the party chair. Right now that's Terry McAuliffe for the DNC and Ed Gillespie for the GOP.

The executive makes decisions that overshadow our bicameral system at every turn.

Such as? (Not that I dispute the general fact, but depending on what those decisions are, my perspective changes.)

The president takes credit for legislation regularly!

A rhetorical nicety--or stupidity, if you prefer--of American culture.

Congressional oversight is all but evaporated, what happened to the war profiteering amendment on the Iraq reconstrution bill? Approved by both houses, dropped in commitee. Too many examples to list.

(3) Whose fault is that lack of oversight?

The Answers:

(1) The executive in charge of the system being budgeted ought to propose the budget.
(2) Congress allowed that latitude.
(3) Congress is responsible for the lack of oversight.

The Big Question:

How is any of this affected by the direct election of a president?

A request for our British associates:

There is a ritual that occurs, apparently, when your legislative bodies come together. The Crown appears from time to time before at least one of the houses, and in a traditional ceremony, the Beadle is locked out while the Crown reads to the legislators a list of necessities, requests, or fancies hoped for on behalf of the British people. Admittedly, I've only seen part of this ritual once, but it seems akin to what would be a proper State of the Union Address, in which our President is supposed to brief Congress on the state of the nation, and in which the President often spells out what is desired in terms of legislation.

Are the Crown's requests binding?

The reason I ask is that, while we're prone to criticizing budgets according to presidents (e.g. even I, in Kerry's defense, point to Poppy Bush's appropriations bill that, once passed, was called "Bush's budget" as well as "bad for the military") the budget is argued, altered, and finalized by Congress before being submitted to the president.

And much of our political rhetoric is fundamentally mistaken in its assignation of responsibility. I'm seeking something to contrast the American legislative system against so people might see the inappropriate assignations of our political rhetoric more clearly.

It's a side issue, I admit, that would lead to its own topic in time, but for now, I'm curious. Because while our presidents submit proposed budgets, I don't see that obligation in the Constitution; rather, appropriations are left to Congress.

The electoral college ensures a two party system, so no crazy right-wing fringe candidate can get elected.

The baseball analogy is pointless. Talk about a stretch.

The EC, as it stands, is about inequality. The voting power is made greater than the voting power of others, simply because of their geography. It is unfair. The freedom to vote and have it count is a basic freedom in free society. We do not have that. Anyone that values the freedom of the individual should be firmly against such a blatant violation.

I saw an episode of West Wing last night. The president says "...that assumes we're a democracy. The United States of America is a republic. The people do not make the decisions, they elect the people who make the decisions."

The baseball analogy is apropos, considering that we have 51 races each voting to elect electors who will elect the president.

tiassa- your answers to my questions sidesteps my point that the president has great power to affect the states.

Your big question is repeatedly answered. You acknowledge it yourself. We are a republic not a democracy, so why ask why?

Regarding the republic, any effort to infringe upon the states constitutional rights to send it's citizens electors to the national assembly would by definition weaken the republic.

In order for the EC to be abolished, 67 senators would have to ratify this change to the constitution. Why would states give up this power?

Insane,
"Regarding the republic, any effort to infringe upon the states constitutional rights to send it's citizens electors to the national assembly would by definition weaken the republic."

It would realign the power and influence of states. Not weaken the republic as a whole.

If the EC is abolished, we would still be a republic. The only thing different is the method in which our commander in chief is elected. Our republic is supposed to be representative of the people contained within. Tweaking said republic for this aim should not be out of the question.

"In order for the EC to be abolished, 67 senators would have to ratify this change to the constitution. Why would states give up this power? "

It would be hard to pull off. People rarely, if ever, surrender power for the greater good.

Hey fadingCapitain,

It would realign the power and influence of states. Not weaken the republic as a whole.

The republic is composed of states. I dissagree with your 'realign the power and influence' I call it weakness. Whatever.

If the EC is abolished, we would still be a republic. The only thing different is the method in which our commander in chief is elected. Our republic is supposed to be representative of the people contained within. Tweaking said republic for this aim should not be out of the question.

Given the expansive powers of the President, this is an enormous concession. Our elected statesmen may well decide to tweak the constitution. My hope is that it will be for the common good of the nation as opposed to the selective interests of the powerful.

It would be hard to pull off.

Although I agree it would be hard, it is obviously not without precedent.

People rarely, if ever, surrender power for the greater good.

I wholly disagree if by 'the people' you mean the citizenry. 'The people' stand in line to surrender their power. The elite define the debate on what is the greater good. I also disagree that the greater good would be abolishing the EC. Reform yes.

Another advantage of popular vote is that it reduces the likelihood of effective cheating. With the electorate winner takes all system, just a few thousand or even a few hundred cheated ballets in a key state can allow you to win a whole election, but with a popular vote you need to cheat hundreds of thousands of ballets nationwide to win. With a popular vote there won’t be another Florida recount fiasco.

WCF,
I think this is an incorrect. 51 voting districts, each with a vested interest in a localized outcome, versus 1 voting superblock? Where will these votes be counted? The most populous cities. Rife with potential abuse.

Case in point. In my state of Washington, years ago we had a public vote on the lottery. It was passed with the express assurance that the revenue would be earmarked for education. Then when it was passed the Superfund was created. In a bait and switch common to my state, the lottery funds went into this superfund out of which the education money was also pulled. The governer did not seek reelection.

Just because there is a common pool does not mean the sharks don't feed better.

Why would the votes be counted any differently from how they are counted now?
Look at what you need to cheat to win, in the electoral college just a few hundred to a few thousand votes, in a popular vote you need hundreds of thousands of votes. It simply obvious that you would need to do a lot more to cheat a popular vote.

It's very simple imo the will of the American people are not being adequately served by the EC. How can the US call itself a democratic nation when the only democracy exists in the states themselves. You are voting for a surrogate, and if you voted for the "wrong guy" your vote would be worthless. In a national election unobstructed by this "EC" then the American people not the people of Ohio, or the people who just voted right to demand a popular mandate. As of right now America is a sham democracy.

Yo Insane,
"My hope is that it will be for the common good of the nation as opposed to the selective interests of the powerful."

That is my argument. If you reform the EC, as you are suggesting, there will still be discrepancy in the voting power. Therefore you have some more 'powerful' than others. If left to popular vote, each vote is not more 'powerful' than another...thus eliminating your concern and precisely representing the 'common good of the nation'.

"I also disagree that the greater good would be abolishing the EC. Reform yes. "

Reform would be very good. I could easily live with it if we had percentage EC voting. But at some point you have to ask: Is it right that some people's presidential votes count more than others because of where they live in the US? My answer to this is no, therefore abolishment is the logical end.

Hey gentlemen,

We simply disagree. No big deal.
Many continue to believe we are in a democacy. The is a heavily reinforced myth.

to repost: "...that assumes we're a democracy. The United States of America is a republic. The people do not make the decisions, they elect the people who make the decisions."

It isn't that I don't (demonstrably) see the point that is being made against EC. I strongly feel that state rights are important. When it is said that abolishing the EC will not infringe on states rights again, we disagree.

Looking at many of you, it appears we are in a similar political quadrant. Although it appears that I am further left, and more libertarian according to that political spectrum test. I am heartened that we continue to have civilized discourse that is apparently absent from a majority of threads. If only the national media could follow suit, perhaps some informative eye opening dialogue would ensue.

We elected people to make decisions for us, yes. But removing the Electoral College which is used for us to elect people to elect the president does not mean we would no longer be a republic. We would still be a republic in that we still elect people to represent us: senators, house representatives, president, ect. The EC is just a needless step made of fear of mass public choice and reduced state power and resulting in being very ineffective at curing both those problems as well as producing problems of its own.

The EC distributes power unevenly between states giving the most power to state with swing voting potential and moderate to large populations. Electorates rarely flip votes from the popular that choose them (in the cases that they do they do a political statement when they know there candidate is going to win.) so it basically a popular vote chooses some guys loyal to a candidate of popular choice. The EC is a result of the popular vote the vast majority of times with only 3 exceptions due to very close races.

your answers to my questions sidesteps my point that the president has great power to affect the states.

On the one hand, the states are nothing more than another layer of social contract.

It's enough, for instance, when Abraham Lincoln says it in the middle of a war: of the people, by the people, and for the people. But do we really believe it? There are those who would assert such a government is fundamentally bad.

It is enough, as well, that the United States Constitution is based upon such a concept: We the people of the United States, indeed.

And we the people do ordain and establish this Electoral College.

The foremost challenge presented by the College is the question raised most recently by the 2000 election: Should not the popular winner take the office? The answer at present is that the popular winner should not necessarily take the office.

That the president can affect the states only means that the president can affect the people. These states are merely an arrangement of convenience, and have no fundamental claim to legitimacy aside from what we, the people, invest of our consciences, wills, and labors.

I have not yet settled on whether the solution is to consider altering or abolishing the College. Simply, the inflexibility of the majority of the states' votes for president invests too much authority in the institution of the states.

In the meantime, I'm rather puzzled by some of the concerns raised, as I don't see how they necessarily tie into the question of the College.

The state of Congress is irrelevant to what the Constitution says it should be. (What the Constitution says, of course, is very relevant in assessing the state of Congress.)

Any form of voting we have will present necessary challenges. Some of those challenges are merely ideological. I would go so far as to assert that part of the solution is just to quit polishing up the country when we teach children about it. Even I react more strongly to the social contract I accepted as a result of my education than I do the one that is actually in place. The one I was offered looks and sounds a lot better, and represents a greater fulfillment of what we claim to strive for, than the one that is actually in place. And the one that is in place is being largely disregarded, anyway.

Which leads to your next point:

Your big question is repeatedly answered. You acknowledge it yourself. We are a republic not a democracy, so why ask why?

Why ask why? Because the question has arisen whether the republic is satisfactory. We, the people allegedly still have the authority to cause such a change if we decide it should be.

Why would the states give up such power, though? Well, if the people decide they are unsatisfied with the republic and wish dearly enough to go about tampering it, there will always be whores to run on such a platform, and from our democratic associations upward, the republic can be put to rest.

As to the wisdom of trading in the republic? Well, I think we need to do some work first. An educated populace would send whores more capable of doing the job in the first place. But that's ... 100 years away, at best. The education part, I mean. The republic? I hope to not see it end in my lifetime on the simple, cynical assertion that the people as a whole are not sufficiently fluent with their own government to go about tinkering with it. I mean, look at some of the recent amendments proposed: flag burning, anti-abortion, heterosexual marriage. Three amendments, two attacks on standing Constitutional principle, one attempt to revise a fundamental human right to self-determination.

Thus I think it could be a bad thing if we have a 2000 repeat, where the popular winner loses the College. It could make the people itch for an irrational solution.

The flip-side is that we might, in the future, see such a problem from the middling ways of the voters that it will become strategically advantageous to play for the popular loss.

It may be that we're reaching a point where we must outgrow the republic and assume new responsibilities as citizens, or, at least, make a more concerted collective effort to fulfill the ones we already have. It may be that only the threat of booting the college will cause the unlocking of the two-party system.

In times of peace, people are much more liberal with the word "war", which can be taken to mean a large-scale, intense conflict of public interest. In that sense, yes, there is a war of ideas coming. If we see a repeat of 2000, that conflict might be accelerated.

As to the baseball analogy, there might be something there. (Or so says my two cents.) Imagine an election period in which we schedule seven votes, to be taken over the course of fourteen weeks. (There goes the voter turnout ....)

Wait, wait, wait .... I've got it.

Imagine a series of debates in which all the candidates on the ballot (there are nine tickets on the Washington state ballot) answer questions in turn from soundproof booths so they can't hear their opponents' answers. At the end of the first debate, the FEC holds a vote of the people. While nobody is struck from the ballot, somebody will not return for the next debate. So then we'd have eight tickets on the stage, and we repeat the process. The people vote, and someone else is "kicked off the island". By the time you get down to four candidates or so, you can let them out of their cages and hold more orthodox debates, with nobody else getting kicked off the stage, but a round-robin series of debates beginning in order that each of those four candidates must debate the other three head-to-head, as well as a couple of general arguments between the lot of them at once. Everybody stays on the ballot, more people are included in the debates, the two major parties will look no less ridiculous than some of their lesser-known counterparts.

Okay, so it's a rough-sketch. The thing is that the question has been raised because, despite the alternatives, some have come to question the wisdom of the republic. I think the legitimacy of that question lies somewhere in the future, perhaps near.

So imagine Bush wins election on November 2 in the same fashion: riding a popular minority.

Regardless of what happens to the electoral college, what will history say of the fact that dramatic changes in foreign policy and what has come to be viewed as one of our worst policy blunders in history (e.g. Iraq) coincide with a pair of minority victories at the ballot box?

And it's not that I wouldn't ask the question of John Kerry's presidency, except that I don't think he'll win that way. If he wins, he will also have a popular majority. And while I largely would expect a Bush victory to involve a popular majority, I have no reason to rule out the possibility of another minority win.

And I think another minority win, back to back like that, could be the catalyst for some unwise tinkering. Nonetheless, the question arises, and has a possibility of gaining validity.

The US is NOT and never has been a Democracy.
It is a collection of individual Democracies held together by a central federal Republic.

The problem is, the states are falling further and further out of the loop since the cold war.

You are right, Insane, that we run the risk of the President pandering to the greater metropolises (though I disagree about the others getting entirely ignored) and that is the whole problem.
What we need to focus on is removing that imbalance, NOT by EC reform, but by states rights reform.
We need to decide if this is still a collection of Democracies bound by a central Republic still, or just a nation-wide republic.
If the states are concerned that what applies to NYC does not apply to Wyoming (which they SHOULD be) then the system needs to be redisgned to reflect those differences and pull back the mighty reigns of the federal government.

Again, you are right about State's rights being at the center of this issue, and that's what should really addressed.
Realigning the EC to reflect the needs of rural states is not the answer, because it is unfair to the majority of the people.
Instituting direct election while allowing the federal government the same wide reaching power it has is both unfair to the states that are supposed to be directly governing the people, and the people themselves, because life IS vastly different between NYC and rural Wyoming.
The federal government has become too large and unweildly, it has too much power over individuals and is too far removed from direct consequences of it's actions.

The people should be governed directly by the states, and the federal government's role should simply to be an arbiter of issues that affect all equally.
Each state should be like a small European Country, and the fed should be the EU.
THAT'S how it was designed, and THAT'S how it will be effective and fair.

Until that happens removing people from having a direct say in a branch of government that has a direct say in such wide reaching areas of their lives is simply unfair.

Either allow direct elections, or return the government to reflect what it once was.

If Texas doesn't want to allow Gay Marriage, then it shouldn't have to.
If California does, it should be allowed to.
Let the state's citizens decide what is best for the states and let the fed intervene only in issues that affect all citizens across the country.

Would you feel the same if we were talking about allowing or disallowing interracial marriage in different states? Ok, you can't marry your black girlfriend in Texas, but you can in California?

If Texas doesn't want to allow Gay Marriage, then it shouldn't have to.
If California does, it should be allowed to.
Let the state's citizens decide what is best for the states and let the fed intervene only in issues that affect all citizens across the country.

Gender is not a suspect classification. States cannot violate the U.S. Constitution.

Please don't get hung up on the one example I chose.
I just pulled it out my a$$.

The point of what I was saying is that the federal government is far too large and unweildy.

The system is a pathetic shell of what it was designed to be.
The nation is too large and too diverse to allow a single body have as much power as it does over the people.
What is important to those living in NYC is not important to those in Wyoming, and because of that, what those in Wyoming want does not get properly addressed and they don't have proper representation.
The system, as designed, is necessary to address the concerns of living the vastly different lifestyles in vastly different regions of a vast land.
The states are seperate Representative Democracies, therefore should hold the greatest amount of governing power over their citizens.
The federal government's powers over the states should be severely limited.

Not only is this country too large and diverse for a central government to fairly govern all the people and equally address all the issues, it is far too large for any person to keep proper tabs on it.

Like I said, the system, as it was designed, was very much like what the EU is today, and I would like to see it return to that ideal.
If it did, the EC WOULD be fair.
Until it does, the EC is limiting.

Why should someone from Rural West Viginia have any say in governemnt policy for people that live in NYC, unless it directly affects them and vice versa?

I don't think they should.

I all for small government, but I think this going out of the range of this thread.

I all for small government, but I think this going out of the range of this thread.
I disagree.
It is well within the scope of the discussion.
I don't think you can fairly talk about whether or not to abolish the EC without discussing it.

The discussion is the abolishment of the Electoral College nothing more, I think most of us at this forum would like to restructure the USA, lets stick to one thing at a time on one thread at a time. If you want to continue I would be glad to split it off into a new thread.

If you insist you can.
My simple point is that abolishing the EC without returning state's powers would be foollish and ineffectual.
If you split it off, that discussion will include EC topics as well, and will just make it more confusing with two topics, in my opinion.

Do what you think is best, however.

Many of us disagree, we feel state power in the presidental race would not be any more skewed then it is under EC if we went popular.

Many of us disagree, we feel state power in the presidental race would not be any more skewed then it is under EC if we went popular.
I know you do, and that's why it is part of this discussion.

yes the issue of state power in the presidential election, not the issue of reforming the interaction between state and federal goverment.

The discussion is the abolishment of the Electoral College nothing more, I think most of us at this forum would like to restructure the USA,...
This forum is a very small corner of the Universe.

The fact of its existence can't be construed, by any actually informed individual, to be a statistically significant part of the available pool of voters likely intent to support such a desire.

In other words, you're dreaming.

Mr. G,

The discussion is the abolishment of the Electoral College nothing more, I think most of us at this forum would like to restructure the USA,...

I’m afraid you misconstrued and took that comment out of context, it was about how issues and topics should be organized in this sub-forum, not about the feasibility of any particular issue.

Also I have called for you banishment for not heading to moderator warning, rule violations after being warned, overriding moderator editing. If you want to talk about do it outside to this thread.

It is merely sufficent to have demonstrated that not all revolutions are equal to those officially sanctioned. ;)

Even more math.

The population of the top 8 states comprise 1/2 of the nations total population.

However the electors sent by these same 8 states are 209. leaving 329 electors up for grabs.

It can clearly be seen here that to abolish the EC would give unprecedented power to fewer states.



Also note, that the senators from Wyoming get the same number of votes on a bill as the senators from California. This bill will affect the nation. Some of the argument here would suggest that the Wyoming senators should only recieve 1/15 the vote of the California senators. Yes, of course, the house counterbalances this but the point is made. In a republic the minority must be protected from the majority.

Were we to have direct elections for everything, The Christians would be the state religion in no time. Muslims, minorites of all walks of life would overnight be disenfranchised. America needs to stay a republic. Corporations however need to get out of the process.

Mr. G,

Yes like they use to say in ancient Sumaria "good crop of babies this year."

Insanely Elite,
So from 50% controled by 8 states its 39% control by 8 states a reduction of power by 28%, that not much of a shift of power.

Yes we have the senate and house equalize power from state to population very well. The question is why is the equalization so important for the presidency and only the presidency, is the president going to do special favors for the big states? If so then why hasn’t the president been doing special favors for swing states in the EC system? Face it under both systems to the states power of control (theoretically) of the president is lopsided, at least in one system the populace get power divided equally.

I would actually favor ammending the EC rather than abolish it. The per state votes should be proportioned by popular vote and should be directly applied without electorates casting the vote.

There is no legal binding reuirement that they will vote the way you wanted your vote for President to be made.

The reality of the current system is that 50% of the populations votes are amended and given to the other canidate via selecting 538 people to vote for President and their vote is not legally linked to the choice for President that got them elected as your representative.

The people have no voice in the Presidental election; except by osmosis.

Why ask why? Because the question has arisen whether the republic is satisfactory. We, the people allegedly still have the authority to cause such a change if we decide it should be.
No we don't. At all. The Constitution is neither a living document nor susceptible to revision based on the transitory whims of the citizenry. The very foundation of it belies the simple fact that we are a Federalist Republic, and not a Democracy. The EC is a bulwark against the tyranny of the majority that De Tocqueville warned us about. You can amend it. You can abolish it. That's all well and good. But you can't change the fact that we are a Republic (with a democratic Congress) without shitting all over the Constitution, burning it, and rewriting it.

But you can't change the fact that we are a Republic (with a democratic Congress) without shitting all over the Constitution, burning it, and rewriting it.

Whether shitting or burning is necessary is rather dumb hyperbole. However:
• No we don't. At all.
• But you can't change the fact that we are a Republic (with a democratic Congress) without shitting all over the Constitution, burning it, and rewriting it.

One or the other?

Stokes, I would like to ask you to please explain the "tyranny of the masses" as relates the idea of selecting a president.

Nobody yet has satisfactorily addressed that point in this topic.

Somethin interesting on the news two nights ago. In Asutralia it is mandatory that you vote. Fail to vote and ou are fined. Fail again and the fine keeps going up.

Not voting becomes a serious crime. :D

Stokes, I would like to ask you to please explain the "tyranny of the masses" as relates the idea of selecting a president.
It doesn't right now because of the EC. Electing by a proxy of representatives is what ensures that all citizens are afforded representation directly proportional to their numbers. Without it, the entire nation's domestic policy would be decided by the residents of New York, Massachusetts, California, and Virginia. That's where "the masses" reside and those masses would otherwise have such an overpowering representation that the farmers in corn country Iowa would be at their whims, which is where the tyranny comes in.

WCF: I'd like to know what you modified in my previous post so I can avoid doing whatever that was in the future.

Electing by a proxy of representatives is what ensures that all citizens are afforded representation directly proportional to their numbers.

How is that standard of representation not arbitrary?

What, other than, "One person, one vote," is proportionate to their numbers?