Electoral College

jimmoyer
#1
New York City proper has 8 million people.

Virginia has 7.6 million people.

If there was no electoral college, one city would equal one state's power.

One man one vote would impose an urban life style of thinking.

At least with the electoral college the rural and outer-urban has a fighting chance.

One man one vote all by its isolated self is a plan for mobocracy, subject to the flighty
moods of the day, a prison to the current zeitgeist.
 
agentkgb
#2
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyerView Post

One man one vote would impose an urban life style of thinking.

If the majority of the country is urban, then why would we want to use a "rural style of thinking"?
Edited.
 
selfactivated
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyerView Post

New York City proper has 8 million people.

Virginia has 7.6 million people.

If there was no electoral college, one city would equal one state's power.

One man one vote would impose an urban life style of thinking.

At least with the electoral college the rural and outer-urban has a fighting chance.

One man one vote all by its isolated self is a plan for mobocracy, subject to the flighty
moods of the day, a prison to the current zeitgeist.


Id agree if it worked. I dont see that it does. It discorages voters to vote because they feel they have no real say in the system. I feel we really need to rethink the entire voting system, as it is now its antquated.
 
jimmoyer
#4
If the majority of the country is urban, then why would we want to use a "rural style of thinking"?
Edited.
-------------------------------------------agentkgb-------------------------------------------------

They really ought to teach that representative democracy or "small r" republic democracies'
one component of simple majority rule is a plan for MOB-OCRACY, tyranny of the majority,
no worse than that of a dictator, a mob imprisoned by the current fad or zeitgeist, easily dominating
over any other views or others' specialized knowlege.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyerView Post

If the majority of the country is urban, then why would we want to use a "rural style of thinking"?
Edited.
-------------------------------------------agentkgb-------------------------------------------------

They really ought to teach that representative democracy or "small r" republic democracies'
one component of simple majority rule is a plan for MOB-OCRACY, tyranny of the majority,
no worse than that of a dictator, a mob imprisoned by the current fad or zeitgeist, easily dominating
over any other views or others' specialized knowlege.

Majority rule is, I'm told, the cornerstone of democracy.Am I correct in thinking you're in favour of some sort of big-brotherism, a benevolent house of elitest leaders. How would that differ from what we have now? If this country is to survive it must cull it's rich not cultivate them.
 
agentkgb
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyerView Post

If the majority of the country is urban, then why would we want to use a "rural style of thinking"?
Edited.
-------------------------------------------agentkgb-------------------------------------------------

They really ought to teach that representative democracy or "small r" republic democracies'
one component of simple majority rule is a plan for MOB-OCRACY, tyranny of the majority,
no worse than that of a dictator, a mob imprisoned by the current fad or zeitgeist, easily dominating
over any other views or others' specialized knowlege.

How would it be a mobocracy if we used an "urban way of thinking" in the federal government just because most people in the country are urban? It'd make more sense than using a "rural way of thinking," given that most people are not rural. Also, it wouldn't be a simple majority rule even without the electoral college because we'd still be a republic, not an actual democracy.
 
Tonington
#7
It just doesn't seem right though. Do they ever split the electoral college votes to represent how that state voted? I mean if California was say 6:4 for Democrat:Republican, then the 55 electoral votes should also be split similarly? Maybe they've done that before, I don't know. I know that there would be issues with splitting 1 electoral college vote because of percentages, but certainly that would be better representation.
 
selfactivated
#8
Its always been 1 electoral vote that I know of. The whole thing irks me because Im 43 and JUST now getting the gist of the electorial college. Its NOT democratic and it DOES need to be changed.
 
Curiosity
#9
The Electoral College elects only the President and his VP at least that is how I interpret that particular part of the Constitution...I hope I haven't misunderstood it.

Quote:


Why Does it Work This Way?
Most voters would be unhappy to see their candidate win the most votes but lose the election. Why would the Founding Fathers create a constitutional process that would allow this to happen?
The Framers of the Constitution wanted to make sure the people were given direct input in choosing their leaders and saw two ways to accomplish this:
1. The people of the entire nation would vote for and elect the president and vice president based on popular votes alone. A direct popular election.
2. The people of each state would elect their members of the US Congress by direct popular election. The members of Congress would then express the wishes of the people by electing the president and vice president themselves. An election by Congress.
The Founding Fathers feared the direct popular election option. zSB(3,3)Sponsored Links
Electoral College ReformGet involved in reforming presidential electionswww.fairvote.org

Quote has been trimmed
 
selfactivated
#10
No your quite right. Its NOT a majority election is a........some kind of math equation.
 
Curiosity
#11
SelfActivated

Some kind of 1700's logic I guess.

I like to think we've come a long way baby .... but in communications only ... certainly not in adequate electoral processes.
 
selfactivated
#12
Curio its crazy! It may have been fine back then but now? Let me show you why people dont vote. Im a woman, poor, mentally ill, single and left wing. OK. People like me have no faith in the system, we feel our vote doesnt count......and it DOESNT not on this system.

If they change it to one person one vote then the voters will come out in groves. As it is the poor have NO vote only the rich. Look at the stats on who votes. Its not young people its not poor.
 
jimmoyer
#13
One could easily see one pattern to the whole US Constitution. All of it advises against
the Tyranny of the Majority through its Bill of Rights, its Separation of Powers, its Balance of Powers,
the right of judicial review by the Supreme Court, and on and on ---- each regulating the simple
power of the majority.

One man One vote, Simple Majority appears to be so easy a democratic cornerstone to understand
that people forget that this concept begets an amazing complexity and an amazing amount
of dis-satisfaction.

Why does a state make Winner Take All versue Proportional Representation ?

It enhances the Big Tent theory of a 2 party system instead of 200 parties all vying selfishly
with hideous compromises hateful to all. So you ask yourself this: Are 200 parties more
representative when none can achieve a simple majority and thus must compromise away
their own precious platforms ?

Ergo that situation probably begets more intense disgust.


So you can start to see Simple Majority rule begets more questions than understood
by first glance.
 
I think not
#14
I'm really enjoying this thread, and I'm staying out of it......................for now.
 
Curiosity
#15
Elections are hugely expensive too..... perhaps it cuts down on having to go through six of seven parties, all putting three or more candidates to stump around for the whole year before the election.

My questions are:

They seem to want to move up the date of the Election Campaigns in each state now.... who is minding the store....the place where they make the laws....the place where their job is.... where we pay them to pass resolutions and the needs of the country...... if they spend a year finding the bathroom when they are first put in office, and another year campaigning.... and they retire on the salary most of us would feel very wealthy having received....plus perks and benefits none of us have but pay for.
 
jimmoyer
#16
They seem to want to move up the date of the Election Campaigns in each state now.... who is minding the store....the place where they make the laws....the place where their job is.... where we pay them to pass resolutions and the needs of the country...... if they spend a year finding the bathroom when they are first put in office, and another year campaigning.... and they retire on the salary most of us would feel very wealthy having received....plus perks and benefits none of us have but pay for.
------------------------------------------Curiosity--------------------------------------------------------

If I may summarize your questions down to two ?

1. Each state moves up the date of its election. Why ?

The Democratic Party has encouraged California the biggest state to come early along with
7 other states on the same day. This enhances Hillary's prospects because she is the one
who has and will raise the most money for the concentrated advertising in all those states.
That will break the back of any smaller candidate who might have a chance later but won't after
that Big Tuesday Super Primary day.

That will change in the next election because each party always tinkers with the Primary
election rules to get different outcomes each Presidential year.

2. All this electioneering going on and terms are so short, who learns how to govern
properly ?

No one. Not even the entrenched bureaucracy. And which is better corruption by years
of experience or naivete and stupidity brought by no years of experience ???

That's always the choice in a democracy.

Ironic.
 
Curiosity
#17
JimMoyer

Thanks - so then I am left with one more thought.... the "handlers" who flank the newly elected or the re-elected are actually running the store?
 
selfactivated
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by CuriosityView Post

JimMoyer

Thanks - so then I am left with one more thought.... the "handlers" who flank the newly elected or the re-elected are actually running the store?


I always thought in my pea pickin mind that if you were in office and running for office you should do it on your own time. nights and weekends OR send out people in your behalf BUT you better be doing the job your being paid for!
 
jimmoyer
#19
It just doesn't seem right though. Do they ever split the electoral college votes to represent how that state voted? I mean if California was say 6:4 for Democrat:Republican, then the 55 electoral votes should also be split similarly? Maybe they've done that before, I don't know. I know that there would be issues with splitting 1 electoral college vote because of percentages, but certainly that would be better representation.

----------------------------------------------Tonington----------------------------------------------------


Why does a state favor Winner Take All system over Proportional Representation ?

It enhances the Big Tent theory of a 2 party system instead of 200 parties all vying selfishly
with hideous compromises hateful to all. So you ask yourself this: Are 200 parties more
representative when none can achieve a simple majority and thus must compromise away
their own precious platforms ?

Ergo that situation probably begets more intense d-isgust.

Is it any more representative than a 2 party system ?

I don't see it to be so, nor do I detect a greater satisfaction with muliple masturbatory parties
inclined for their own narrow self interests. Two party systems by their nature include many
wings, wingnuts, and work out hegemony and varying levels of tolerance absent in coalition
multi-party governments.

And if you'll notice, it never stops at one third party. It multiplies ad inifinitum after the
first THIRD PARTY comes into being.


So you can start to see Simple Majority rule begets more questions than understood
by first glance.
Last edited by jimmoyer; Feb 1st, 2007 at 02:23 PM..
 
Tonington
#20
Right but as far as Presidential elections go, you don't have to worry about 200 parties being included through majority rule. It's democrat or republican. I don't know much about what kind of candidates end up on the ballet as independants or representatives from other parties, I mean they can play a part in spoiling for one of the two mainstream party candidates.

The electoral college system is based on how many representatives a state has (I think I read that somewhere). So the voting public from the state gets their candidates mixed up between the parties for representation in the house, why then does the number of electoral college votes go to whomever wins the state, instead of also based on how the districts voted. Like if the state sends 5 republicans and 2 democrats to Washington, but then in the presidential elections maybe the democrat wins by a small percentage. Those voters who voted republican have no representation in the elctoral college becuase the state gives all the votes to the democratic candidate, regardless of wins by republicans in say 3/7 districts.

Admittedly I know very little about this system, I suppose if I were American it would make more sense to me than a crazy Parliament like we have.
 
selfactivated
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Right but as far as Presidential elections go, you don't have to worry about 200 parties being included through majority rule. It's democrat or republican. I don't know much about what kind of candidates end up on the ballet as independants or representatives from other parties, I mean they can play a part in spoiling for one of the two mainstream party candidates.

The electoral college system is based on how many representatives a state has (I think I read that somewhere). So the voting public from the state gets their candidates mixed up between the parties for representation in the house, why then does the number of electoral college votes go to whomever wins the state, instead of also based on how the districts voted. Like if the state sends 5 republicans and 2 democrats to Washington, but then in the presidential elections maybe the democrat wins by a small percentage. Those voters who voted republican have no representation in the elctoral college becuase the state gives all the votes to the democratic candidate, regardless of wins by republicans in say 3/7 districts.

Admittedly I know very little about this system, I suppose if I were American it would make more sense to me than a crazy Parliament like we have.

You'd find yourself hard pressed to find an American that gets it! It needs to be changed. Its not representitive of the peoples wishes. IMHO
 
jimmoyer
#22
why then does the number of electoral college votes go to whomever wins the state, instead of also based on how the districts voted. Like if the state sends 5 republicans and 2 democrats to Washington, but then in the presidential elections maybe the democrat wins by a small percentage. Those voters who voted republican have no representation in the elctoral college becuase the state gives all the votes to the democratic candidate, regardless of wins by republicans in say 3/7 districts.
-----------------------------Tonington-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, you don't see how WINNER TAKES ALL shapes Presidential party politics
differently from a PROPORTIONAL SYSTEM.

A proportional system in Presidential politics would open the door to a 3rd party. And to a 4th.
And to a 5th party. And so on.

Why?

It is why Canada has more than 3 parties. It is why no party has a majority. It is why the
largest plurality has to give away some of its principles to a lesser party in order to form a
coalition to govern.

And your PROPORTIONAL SYSTEM appears more representational and yet still
what complaint does one hear ?

A lack of representing the voter's will ?

And perhaps a proportional system produces the largest plurality of pissed-off voters.

How ironic is that ?

You see One Man One Vote, proportional representation is more complex than
first glance intuition knows. Majority vote unregulated, unhampered is also
more scary and complex than most people ever think through.
Last edited by jimmoyer; Feb 1st, 2007 at 02:36 PM..
 
Tonington
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyerView Post

why then does the number of electoral college votes go to whomever wins the state, instead of also based on how the districts voted. Like if the state sends 5 republicans and 2 democrats to Washington, but then in the presidential elections maybe the democrat wins by a small percentage. Those voters who voted republican have no representation in the elctoral college becuase the state gives all the votes to the democratic candidate, regardless of wins by republicans in say 3/7 districts.
-----------------------------Tonington-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, you don't see how WINNER TAKES ALL shapes Presidential party politics
differently from a PROPORTIONAL SYSTEM.

A proportional system in Presidential politics would open the door to a 3rd party. And to a 4th.
And to a 5th party. And so on.

Why?

It is why Canada has more than 3 parties. It is why no party has a majority. It is why the
largest plurality has to give away some of its principles to a lesser party in order to form a
coalition to govern.

And your PROPORTIONAL SYSTEM appears more representational and yet still
what complaint does one hear ?

A lack of representing the voter's will ?

And perhaps a proportional system produces the largest plurality of pissed-off voters.

How ironic is that ?

You see One Man One Vote, proportional representation is more complex than
first glance intuition knows. Majority vote unregulated, unhampered is also
more scary and complex than most people ever think through.

I'm not saying one system is better than the other. I'm happy right now without a majority party Governing here.

What is wrong with having a 3rd or 4th party as a President? If that is what the people want that is what they get. Options are a good thing. A majority can make decisions without opposition, so a majority can effectively ignore the wishes of portions of the electorate. Whereas a minority must take into consideration the electorate as a whole, not the majority only.

I simply can't understand why a state gets electoral college votes based on the number of representatives, but for Presidential elections it's all or nothing. When the census dictates through some formula that another representative is needed, the state gets an extra electoral college vote for that extra representative, but when the presidential election comes around, that extra electoral vote may not even get representation in the national scheme of things. Enough electoral college votes wins the Presidency, even if the majority of Americans don't support that candidate. I don't know what wins a state, is it the number of districts won or the majority of votes state-wide?
 
I think not
#24
Tonington

It's not quite the way you are interpreting it, or I'm just reading you wrong.

The US, as you know, elects it's Head of State via Presidential elections. You don't have to belong to any party to run for President. Ross Perot rings a bell. Ralph Nader keeps running and is getting nowhere. The Presidential Elections are up for grabs by anyone, all a candidate needs is a certain amount of signatures to get on the ballot in each state.

Now, as for the multiple party thing. There are multiple parties. In the last elections I had various parties to choose from (marijuana party ie) to elect a Senator and House of Representatives in my District. In the Senate and House mulitple parties make sense, and they exist. In the Presidential elections, they don't really make any sense, because when it comes down to it. You are voting for an individual and his or her principles and policies he/she sets forth during a campaign.

As for the Electoral College, it has served the US quite well since it's founding. Crticis will tell you it is outdated. This is true to a certain extent, it needs tweaking. But it has mechanisms that prevent a majority within the entire country having a louder voice than any minority.

For example; imagine the Cubans in Florida (numbering around 3 million) shouting for certain rights amongst 300 million people. Will their voice be heard? Not really, politicians go where the votes are, 3 million Cubans are nothing nationwide, but within the state of Florida, they are heard loud and clear.

Any other questions?
 
Tonington
#25
I get that you don't need to belong to a party, with independants and what not. That example about the Cuban population is kinda what I was getting at. For one, I don't know how the elections work, like is the winner in a state declared by winning the majority of districts? Or is it the total votes statewide that determine the winner? So I don't really know how best to put forward my questions.

To go back to the Cuban example, if a candidate has policies which they can empathize with and support, say they all vote for one candidate (heres where my ignorance is a problem I think), if the other candidate wins the state, but maybe the Cubans all supported the other candidate, then all electoral college votes go to the winner, and those Cubans votes aren't represented, even though their votes may have won some districts(if that's how things are done) or if not their votes don't even represent a portion of the electoral college votes coming out of Florida.
 
I think not
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

I get that you don't need to belong to a party, with independants and what not. That example about the Cuban population is kinda what I was getting at. For one, I don't know how the elections work, like is the winner in a state declared by winning the majority of districts? Or is it the total votes statewide that determine the winner? So I don't really know how best to put forward my questions.

Majority vote across the state wins the state electors. The electors then gather 41 days after the vote to officially cast their votes towards the President.

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

To go back to the Cuban example, if a candidate has policies which they can empathize with and support, say they all vote for one candidate (heres where my ignorance is a problem I think), if the other candidate wins the state, but maybe the Cubans all supported the other candidate, then all electoral college votes go to the winner, and those Cubans votes aren't represented, even though their votes may have won some districts(if that's how things are done) or if not their votes don't even represent a portion of the electoral college votes coming out of Florida.

You lost me here.

If the Cubans support candidate A and candidate B wins (which can care less for the Cubans), then the Cubans shouldn't expect anything. Is that what you're saying?
 
Tonington
#27
What I'm saying is, why should the candidate who wins the state get all of the electoral college votes. The number of those votes is dependant on the number of representatives in the House, who can be from all different parties. Wouldn't it stand to reason that those electoral college votes should also represent how the different areas of a state vote, rather than the whole state?
 
I think not
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

What I'm saying is, why should the candidate who wins the state get all of the electoral college votes. The number of those votes is dependant on the number of representatives in the House, who can be from all different parties. Wouldn't it stand to reason that those electoral college votes should also represent how the different areas of a state vote, rather than the whole state?

Are you suggesting proportional representation?
 
selfactivated
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by I think notView Post

Tonington
It's not quite the way you are interpreting it, or I'm just reading you wrong.
The US, as you know, elects it's Head of State via Presidential elections. You don't have to belong to any party to run for President. Ross Perot rings a bell. Ralph Nader keeps running and is getting nowhere. The Presidential Elections are up for grabs by anyone, all a candidate needs is a certain amount of signatures to get on the ballot in each state.
Now, as for the multiple party thing. There are multiple parties. In the last elections I had various parties to choose from (marijuana party ie) to elect a Senator and House of Representatives in my District. In the Senate and House mulitple parties make sense, and they exist. In the Presidential elections, they don't really make any sense, because when it comes down to it. You are voting for an individual and his or her principles and policies he/she sets forth during a campaign.
As for the Electoral College, it has served the US quite well since it's founding. Crticis will tell you it is outdated. This is true to a certain extent, it needs tweaking. But it has mechanisms that prevent a majority within the entire country having a louder voice than any minority.

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Yeah how do we tweek it cause it isnt working! Look at the last 2 elections.
 
I think not
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by selfactivatedView Post

Yeah how do we tweek it cause it isnt working! Look at the last 2 elections.

What was wrong with the last two elections?
 

Similar Threads

0
Electoral reform?
by CBC News | Oct 9th, 2007
54
How to reform the electoral system
by atlanticaparty | Mar 3rd, 2007
0
Electoral reform?
by atlanticaparty | Feb 18th, 2007
15
Electoral Reform
by Finder | Jan 30th, 2006
2
More electoral chaos coming in US?
by eastcoastrob | Oct 15th, 2004
no new posts