I dont know the answers Im not near smart enough. I just know what we have now doesnt work. Cobalt_Kid said it much better than I have been.
Electoral College
- Thread starter jimmoyer
- Start date
It wouldn't be an "urban" style, but a more "balanced" style, which includes urban input.
thanks
The U.S. Supreme Court gave Bush the 2000 election. They stopped the vote recount in Florida which would have given the state to Gore.
I lived in the states when I was younger and I found few people who really understood the electoral college system. That doesn't sound like something you'd want to have as part of a well functioning democracy. Supposedly it balances out the influences of the more heavily populated areas over the less, but the way Congress is set up already does that I think.
Zeal for Reform usually dwindles after doing the research in the complex details
hiding behind our simple notions of democracy.
What first seems unfair looks alot wiser after further study.
hiding behind our simple notions of democracy.
What first seems unfair looks alot wiser after further study.
No one's ever told me...why to electorals in America need their own college?
And what's an electoral anyway???
-----------------------------------MikeyDB---------------------------------------------------------
lol.
Electoral is just making an adjective out of electors.
And college is used as collegial as in a group of colleagues, peers, assembled together.
And what's an electoral anyway???
-----------------------------------MikeyDB---------------------------------------------------------
lol.
Electoral is just making an adjective out of electors.
And college is used as collegial as in a group of colleagues, peers, assembled together.
I figured as much but thanks Jim...
Has the United States really got a problem with managing the voting process so it's equitable and fair or is there some special condition native only to the United States that requires that some body of officials decide how the votes "ought" to reflect the wishes of its citizens?
Has the United States really got a problem with managing the voting process so it's equitable and fair or is there some special condition native only to the United States that requires that some body of officials decide how the votes "ought" to reflect the wishes of its citizens?
And since most of the country is urban, it would be logical for the style to be more urban than rural. Only one person can be president at a time so you can't really balance that, but each state is represented in the legislature anyway so that branch would be representative.
Only one person can be president at a time so you can't really balance that, but each state is represented in the legislature anyway so that branch would be representative...
------------------------------------------------agentkgb------------------------------------------
We're discussing the Electoral College which ONLY concerns itself with the Presidential election,
and how rural states can compete with urban centers for Presidential candidates' attention.
A popular direct one man one vote system is not so simple, because it will
literally forever and ever take away a Presidential candidates' interest
in the rural states and the smaller states.
The way it is now, all regions get a pretty fair amount of attention.
------------------------------------------------agentkgb------------------------------------------
We're discussing the Electoral College which ONLY concerns itself with the Presidential election,
and how rural states can compete with urban centers for Presidential candidates' attention.
A popular direct one man one vote system is not so simple, because it will
literally forever and ever take away a Presidential candidates' interest
in the rural states and the smaller states.
The way it is now, all regions get a pretty fair amount of attention.
JimMoyer
Well we could go back to the Royals system and primogeniture....
Or..........how about a dictatorship...nobody argues with those....
Well we could go back to the Royals system and primogeniture....
Or..........how about a dictatorship...nobody argues with those....
The electoral college is hardly as undemocratic as "the Royals system and primogeniture...."
Of course primogeniture is still alive and well in the Middle East.
Terms of endearment are expressed every day when referring to each other
as "The father of his first son's name". Abu means Father of. And the name that follows
ABU is the name of the first son.
That's not exactly primogeniture, but it certainly is its accoutrement.
Of course primogeniture is still alive and well in the Middle East.
Terms of endearment are expressed every day when referring to each other
as "The father of his first son's name". Abu means Father of. And the name that follows
ABU is the name of the first son.
That's not exactly primogeniture, but it certainly is its accoutrement.
Totally and completely untrue. There is no complete recount, even the unofficial one done long after it counted or mattered, that gave Florida to Gore. Gore lost narrowly...but he did lose.
Yes, my point was just that the legislature will represent the country in ways the executive branch never could.
If the camapaigns were still dependent on actual time spent there, that'd be one thing. However, with technology now everyone will know what candidates' stances are on everything. It's not as though candidates will only travel to big cities and that's what matters (maybe I'm misunderstanding you, I'm not sure).
Candidates would continue to acknowledge rural issues, just they might not happen to speak as often in Boise as they do in NYC. The way you're looking at it seems to be pretty much entirely in terms of states, but since many states with large urban centers also have rural areas, it's not as though a candidate now can't take NY's electoral votes without concentrating on those rural areas. States' interests aren't always united.
Agentkgb, your point that technology can replace the physical act of a presidential candidate's
visit to a rural area assumes its "virtually the same thing" as seeing the guy on TV.
I disagree.
You want the candidate bumping physically into the flesh and eyes of a person standing
there, representing themselves eye to eye.
On a fundamental psychological level that causes a different interaction.
Think about it. You might be more capable of being rude and particularly intransigent
on the phone than you would right there in front of a person.
It gets that fundamental, not to be blithely or easily discounted.
Each state's citizens get more attention than it would if we shifted to
just concentrated population centers.
Look how your own provinces complain of unequal attention ?
visit to a rural area assumes its "virtually the same thing" as seeing the guy on TV.
I disagree.
You want the candidate bumping physically into the flesh and eyes of a person standing
there, representing themselves eye to eye.
On a fundamental psychological level that causes a different interaction.
Think about it. You might be more capable of being rude and particularly intransigent
on the phone than you would right there in front of a person.
It gets that fundamental, not to be blithely or easily discounted.
Each state's citizens get more attention than it would if we shifted to
just concentrated population centers.
Look how your own provinces complain of unequal attention ?
Sorry I haven't been around for a while, but better late than never I guess.
I'm not sure I entirely got your point, but politicians tend to be entirely capable of betraying the people they voted for regardless of what kind of contact they've had with them.
Why does it matter where a politician visits? What matters are her/his policies, and those have to do with who he/she's chosen to try to get votes from. The electoral college would fit this kind of if states were united in their interests, but they're certainly not. The geographic divisions make sense only in terms of travel, and I just don't see why that's important. Everyone knows what people (officially) stand for no matter where they speak.
Provinces? I wish I could say I was Canadian, but I'm not.
Why does it matter where a politician visits? --------------AgentKgb
Answer:
Watch what the candidates do. They apparently think it matters.
Answer:
Watch what the candidates do. They apparently think it matters.
Exactly my point though. I can't learn anything from a candidate just by watching him. I don't care what he looks like or what state he goes to, what matters is what he'd do if he were president. They think it matters to us (and it does matter to a lot of people), but there's no reason it should. The only reason it matters to the candidates is because they think it matters to the voters. A candidate that visits a city in NY isn't more likely to care about people from NY because of it or be more urban, and a candidate who visits a rural area in Nebraska isn't more likely to care about people from Nebraska more or be more rural.
A candidate that visits a city in NY isn't more likely to care about people from NY because of it or be more urban, and a candidate who visits a rural area in Nebraska isn't more likely to care about people from Nebraska more or be more rural.
---------------------------------------------AgentKgb-------------------------------------------------------
While rationally accurate, your premise about virtual reality on a TV screen or a computer screen
being more important than physical proximity is too simple to be true.
Warren G Harding, campaigned entirely from his front porch in Ohio.
No candidate could get away with that today.
Nor can a best selling author. They're forced to do a book tour.
Such physicality appears to be useless to you ???
Hmmm...
---------------------------------------------AgentKgb-------------------------------------------------------
While rationally accurate, your premise about virtual reality on a TV screen or a computer screen
being more important than physical proximity is too simple to be true.
Warren G Harding, campaigned entirely from his front porch in Ohio.
No candidate could get away with that today.
Nor can a best selling author. They're forced to do a book tour.
Such physicality appears to be useless to you ???
Hmmm...
Because people feel that it's important, candidates will do it. Getting rid of the electoral college would mean that candidates (or their employees anyway) will continue to work out their schedules in the way they think will get them the most votes. It has no effect on the candidates beliefs or future policies, it just makes people feel special. Keeping the electoral college to make sure that the candidates go to rural areas won't actually have an effect on the way an elected candidate will run his office, it just makes it so some people's votes are worth more than other people's.
They serve no purpose (unless the candidates had a disease and somehow no one knew even though we are living in what is accurately described as the Information Age).
In 2004 it took nearly 300,000 Wisconsin voters to equal one electoral vote; in Wyoming it was less than 90,000 voters. Leaving the system the way it is so that people in rural areas get to see candidates more often just doesn't make sense to me. Even if it did, the electoral college wouldn't accomplish that since there are rural areas in states with large cities and cities in mostly rural states.