Is it not time to do away with the out dated system. Why do we need the college? HOW AND WHO ARE THE PEOPLE ELECTED IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE? A COUPLE OF CLASSMATES CALLED A GOVERMENT QUESTION LINE TO ASK THESE QUESTIONS AND WERE LATER BAGERED BY CALLS FROM THE FBI
It is quite outdated, and I don't see many benefits to it. Just go with the popular vote. Can someone point out the pros for the Electoral College and the cons for using the popular vote?
With the popular vote, since most people are located in major cities, it wouldn't represent the rest of the country very well. Imagine if all of New York and California voted one way, it'll basically dominate all of the country by their views and well, most city folk have the same liberal outlooks. This country is made up of states and each state needs to be represented. States have different laws and customs. Just because a highly populated state is one way, it doesn't mean everyone else is. By it being set up this way, the more populated states receive more electoral votes but gives other states a wee bit more of a chance of having some sort of influence on the outcome as opposed to using pure population votes. I do agree that it's a bit stupid in that the electoral college winds up being more important than the total number of votes as shown in the 2000 elections between Gore and Bush. My vote in California is always worthless because this state is always going to vote for the democrat. So this state goes towards the democrat as opposed to all the votes being evenly divided up for who voted for who. Electoral votes in a state don't get to be divided up, it's an all or nothing thing that goes to a candidate. If they were divided up with a state that has a lot of electoral votes, it would change things dramatically. Making it that way would be more fair. The all or nothing electoral points is the flaw. They wanna make it so less populated states have more of a role then go ahead and let a vote from a person in Wyoming be worth two votes or something. That would allow the less populated states to have more of a role but it would also more evenly spread out total votes from the other higher populated states. If a state is split 51% to 49% between 20-30 million voters, it sucks that all the points go to one candidate. The other 49% didn't vote for the other guy. - N
The only idiots who would call it outdated are those who don't have a damn clue about the Constitution...
Actually some states do divide their electoral votes to represent the people in the State. CA obviously doens't. I think that they all should. That would be much more fairer
That's true, Kerry won New York and California and still ended up losing the electoral votes, but he also lost the popular vote as well. Just because the vast majority of the people in the large cities vote one way, does not make it an automatic victory, whether we are talking about the electoral college or the popular vote. And in 2002, Gore barely won the popular vote, but also barely lost the electoral votes by a single state (Old-Fart Florida). So both methods cancel each other out in that respect. But where the popular vote shines is that it represents the true will of the people. We vote people in via a majority, why is the presidential election any different? Yes, it's a nationwide election, because we are voting in a President, that should not change the fact that the majority rules. As for people not being represented, sure they are, just because city folks are "liberal" doesn't mean anything, if they are the majority, than that is how the votes will go.
Getting rid of the electoral college would be a major pain in the ass for little, if any, benefit. It would require ammending the constitution which is extreemly difficult. It over two hundred years of American history it's only resulted in a different result than direct voting two times. Big deal It also has the benefit, as mentioned above, of increasing the representation of less populous states. Most important of all, it kept Al Gore out of office. If for no other reason than that, countries around the world should be creating their own electoral colleges.
The electorial college is one of the last things that truly define the origional character of what has turned into a fascist dictatorial crap hole.
Exactly, because using the popular vote = Facism. Wait, what? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
heres a census breakdown of urban vs rural population statistics if anyone wants to see them. it only makes sense that there would be more people living in cities if you ask me, because thats what makes them cities. http://factfinder.census.gov/servle...r=GCT-P1&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-format=US-1 anyway i think the point made above is ridiculous. people in cities have a diverse makeup, and a far more diverse set of viewpoints than most rural populations do. if they are more liberal, it is probably because they have exposure to a wide range of alternative lifestyles and cultures on a daily basis, rather than living in a cloistered environment where this kind of exposure is very limited (a small town for example). the US should be voting for representation based on majority population percentage and not the electoral college system. the fact is, it is possible to win a state's electoral votes without winning the majority popular vote. that to me is idiocy. why would you support something like that, the US population is spread out enough so that one or two states wouldnt totally dominate the political landscape. and even if it did, then it wouldnt be much different than it is now, with the states with the most electoral votes being the focus of lots and lots more campaign dollars and advertisements than a state like say, Rhode Island. In addition to that, the reason a system like the electoral college was devised in the first place is because the founders believed that due to problems of communication, and the inability of any one politician in the day to conduct a truly national campaign, the average person could not become properly informed about the candidates in order to make any choice other than to vote for a local politician, in which case, no popular majority would result. in addition to this, the population of the US at the time of the constitution was such that huge amounts of people were concentrated in certain areas, and other newer states were nearly empty, which brings you to the problem of uneven representation again. we do not have these same difficulties now, and i think that the electoral college has outlived its usefullness because of this. it should either be reformed to reflect the current cultural, technological, and demographic realities of the US, or it should be discontinued.
let's be real here. its relatively obvious that you dont really know anything. then on top of it, when you make statements you provide no factual support for them. then in addition to that, you back down when someone contradicts one of your flagrantly idiotic premises with facts and evidence. you might want to just get with the program and try taking a reasonable position once in a while, or at least find a way to back up your unreasonable ones. youre wasting everyones time with crap like this though, most notably, your own.
Simple question... Why was the electoral college created? It obviously has nothing to do with the fact that the origional intent of the United Provinces of Dumbshitland was to have thirteen sovergin powers working together for mutual benifit, mainly in the relms of economics and national defense.
first of all, who are you to assume original intent? the articles of confederation allowed for a government that was basically the exact thing that you are describing and it failed miserably. one of the main reasons for this is because each state wanted to have its own currency and so it crippled interstate commerce. among other things, the states wouldnt allow the federal government to raise taxes or an army because they were reacting to the oppression that they had felt under english rule. after they recognized that something like this didnt work, and figured out a way to establish a system of checks and balances, they began to feel comfortable giving the new central government greater power. the constitution reflects this and attempts to establish an agreeable balance of power. as a document, it reflects the attitudes and realities of the time when it was written, but openly recognizes that technological and cultural changes will occur and has a built in amendment process to accomodate these advances. just because the electoral college might have originally been devised to meet a certain need and fulfilled its purpose admirably doesnt mean it isnt an outdated institution that no longer works as intended. original intent shouldnt stand in the way of progress. i dont know about you, but i'm glad the US has changed a little since 1789.
That's right, you don't believe in states, as if you had any clue then you would acknowledge how the electoral process works then see the obvious need for it. Only in provinces that are squelched under the tyrannical might of the federal government. Balance of power my ass. There was a balance of power written into the Constitution, but it no longer exists. There are no restrictions on Congress, the President or the Judicary. If you wish to change powers or grant the government new powers, that is the purpose of article 5. Thing is that article 5 is what is truly outdated since now they just change whatever the hell they want and figure that the illiterate retards that vote won't know the difference. Then again you have proven to be a great example of such an illiterate retard.
The good thing about the electoral college is that states can cast their electoral vote any way they wish. So, instead of the president being determined by the Supreme Court, there is the possibility that a state's electors, like in Florida, could have voted for who they felt their state really wanted, although Catherine Harris was just a tool.
yeah but each party picks its electors really carefully nowadays, like i think you have to have been a registered memeber of the party for a set period of time and probably you have to have donated a certain amount in order to be considered. i think theres only been a couple of times in history where the elector didnt vote for the party he or she was assigned to.
pretty much none of what you have said has any relevance. remember when everyone explained how article 5 works for you and you still didnt get it? yeah i do. try giving us an example of why you think its that way and maybe you'll get further. until then maybe try suicide or something.
I haven't been involved in anything dealing with article 5 since I've joined, though I did have a bunch of retards just show their illiteracy by not being able to figure out article 1, especially section 8. Link?
