Electoral College

[jimmoyer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.:wave:

 

[agentkgb]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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
John McCain 2008Learn More About The Exploratory CommitteeExploreMcCain.com
Electoral College NewsLearn about the Electoral College and the outcome of the election.diablog.us


There were no organized national political parties yet, no structure by which to choose and limit the number of candidates. In addition, travel and communication was slow and difficult at that time. A very good candidate could be popular regionally, but remain unknown to the rest of the country. A large number of regionally popular candidates would thus divide the vote and not indicate the wishes of the nation as a whole.
On the other hand, election by Congress would require the members to both accurately assess the desires of the people of their states and to actually vote accordingly. This could have led to elections that better reflected the opinions and political agendas of the members of Congress than the actual will of the people.

As a compromise, we have the Electoral College system.

Considering that only three times in our history has a candidate lost the popular national vote but been elected by electoral vote, and that in both cases the popular vote was extremely close, the system has worked pretty well.
Yet, the Founding Fathers' concerns with direct popular elections have mostly vanished. The national political parties have been around for years. Travel and communications are no longer problems. We all have access to every word spoken by every candidate every day.

In Support of the Electoral College
Despite its odd and often criticized processes, the Electoral College has served the United States well. In addition, there are dangers in the direct popular election of the president. See: Direct Election of the U.S. President: Unacknowledged Perils from the Electoral College Web Zine.

 

[selfactivated]

No your quite right. Its NOT a majority election is a........some kind of math equation.

 

[Curiosity]

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]

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]

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]

I'm really enjoying this thread, and I'm staying out of it......................for now. :wave:

 

[Curiosity]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Tonington]

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.