I am not an American, but I am fully versed in how the US electoral process is worked. My question is this? Does George Bush currently have the power to abolish the Electoral College, not in totality, but to remove their input in the Presidential elections for good?

As US Presidents can only serve two consecutive terms I see it is the norm in the second term, if won, for the incumbent President to actually knuckle down and get some of the good stuff done.

It would appear to me that by removing the process of electoral college votes in further US Presidential elections you would find yourself with a President that the majority actually wants.

Now, before people put me right on the fact that GWB actually DID have the majority of votes this time round, I am well aware of that fact. However, going forward can this process be changed?

Merkin

I am tired of hearing about this stuff. The electoral college was put in place for a reason. A reason that holds true even more today than when it was concieved.

America is not a democracy. It is a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC. For those who do not know what that is, I will give a very short explanation. It is a system of government where the citizens elect representatives that they feel will support their points of view, at least better than the next guy. This is due to the whole, "Can't make everyone happy at the same time" issue that will always exist.

The electoral college is a similar idea, but a little more complex (with good reason). The electoral college serves almost as a referee, insuring that all points of view are at the very least considered. America has several population centers of high concentration. These people, living around major cities and the east and west coast live a certain type of lifestyle. They have certain issues and concerns regarding the economy, race, religion, ect. They also make up a vast majority of the countries population. There are also people who live in areas with a significantly smaller population density. These people have concerns with economics, race, religion, ect., that almost have to differ dramatically to those in high concentrated areas. These concerns are just as important to our economy and country as those concerns from high population centers.

What the Electoral College insures is this. The peoples concerns in these areas must be heard and addressed. If it was not for the Electoral college, you could win an election just pleasing inner city and costal citizens. Why spend the money to campaign, or bother worrying about anything else? You win by gaining the support of high population centers. With the Electoral College in place, it is necessary to consider the concerns of the country as a whole. It forces the candidates to consider more than just one lifestyle.

People need to get over it. The EC is a good thing.

It is a small price to pay when the majority does not win the election...on the rare occasions that it may occur, when pitted against the positives that the Electoral college presents.

[Edited on 11/24/2004 by Seapeople]

Great post, Seapeople. That was the best explanation I've read (been trying to explain it to my British wife, with little success...).

The other point to make is that Bush did, in fact, also win the popular vote (much to my dismay!).

Thanks for the compliment radiant, I don't get many of those on this forum.

Merkin, please do not forget one thing. The Electoral College represents the population. This is an example, the numbers arent real. A state with 1 million people living in it has 100 EC votes. While a state with 100 thousand has 10 votes. It is based on population. I do understand what you are saying. It is the only thing someone arguing the EC can say. Lets say 80% vote one way, and 20% the other. The 20% go away in a sense. You are correct. BUT. Lets take the country as a whole.High population areas make up for most of the voting base. They live a different lifestyle than low population areas. Plain and simple. I do not know for a fact, but I would bet my life that High to Low population areas split the population 80% to 20% or somewhere close. They live different lives. They have different concerns. You basically do the same thing there, but with the whole country. Eliminate the 20%.

Now as to forcing the candidates to campaign in a certain way, in certain areas. We have enough corruption in our governemnt already. If you force the candidates into an area, that in all honesty, means nothing to them. The issues the bring up will, in all honesty, mean nothing to them. It will just be part of a routine. Government regulation has a tendency to do that.

If you want to force real concern to these issues. You need the votes to count. As it stands now, they wouldn't.

Originally posted by Seapeople
The Electoral College represents the population.

This is where people often get confused. The EC doesnt represent the will of the people. The people who are responsible for casting the EC votes may cast them AS THEY PLEASE. They do not have to vote with the popular vote. It is not a requirement. If the EC voter feels the population for thier represented areas are not making the right choice, they may vote opposite of the popular vote. This is the main bases for the abolishment of the EC.

Originally posted by Kidfinger

Originally posted by Seapeople
The Electoral College represents the population.

This is where people often get confused. The EC doesnt represent the will of the people. The people who are responsible for casting the EC votes may cast them AS THEY PLEASE. They do not have to vote with the popular vote. It is not a requirement. If the EC voter feels the population for thier represented areas are not making the right choice, they may vote opposite of the popular vote. This is the main bases for the abolishment of the EC.

You are correct, just as an ellected official can cast their vote AS THEY PLEASE. Well, that is, only in a few states, and with some little regulations. Several states have state law mandating that they cast their votes for the state winner. Most of the other states make them take a pledge to do so. The federal goverment also has the ability to fine members of the Electoral College, as well as invalidating their vote, if cast in a direction not parralel to the states popular vote. They also have the ability to remove members of the EC and replace them on the day of voting if necessary to achieve this. There are two states that do not give all electoral votes to the winner as well. Nebraska and Maine.

Now just for some info, it has happened in the past. Voters have cast their votes in different directions. This has been without reprocussions from the federal government. If the EC members did something dramatic, as you are insinuating to be possible, I assure you that not only would their vote be thrown out, but they would be punished.

So, according to you, I am confused? Are you sure you shouldn't go research this issue a little more. Maybe you will find out that I am not.

You can love saying it all you want, but it doesnt make you right. There has NEVER been a single EC voter prosecuted for voting agianst the popular vote. Am I wrong? I answer with an emphatical NO These are links I have had for a while. Dont go saying I did a 10 miute search because you are blowing steam out of your arse. Did you even read the previous thread I had linked to earlier? Doubtffull, or you would have realized that I have been looking into this for quite sometime. Also,if you would have read the quotes, you would have noticed that I didnt edit them to fit my agenda. I left them as they are. That way, you can see that I am looking at this strictly from a unbiased point. Now, to cut off you accusation that I know you would come back with, I started off looking at the EC in 1996. I have questioned it every sense. The system is corrupt, just like our governing body.

You say that EC voters must take pledges. I have addressed this in my previous post, which you obviously ignored. Not only that, you have yet to truly refute any proof I offered. You just want to, as you admitted, do a 10 minute search and pick and choose what best fits your Ideas. Now, if you really want me to reconsider my opinion, show me some facts that refute the facts I presented,in the previous thread, as well as this one.

Just as you said, I have much more owhere this came from, but iwont start crying like a child and saying your wrong.

No, there has never been a punishment issued. Just to make it clear, I said that quite a few messages ago. You said no such laws existed.

Let us take a real quick run through the past.

Kidfinger says...and I quote:

"There are no laws mandateing the votes of the EC. "

So tell me again who was wrong?

All I am saying is this. If a serious enough issue with the EC was presented, which had the ability to affect the outcome of an election, these laws would be acted upon.

Originally posted by Seapeople


All I am saying is this. If a serious enough issue with the EC was presented, which had the ability to affect the outcome of an election, these laws would be acted upon.

The laws have never been enforced befdore, and I dont see it ever happening. There has been a few voting instances where this has happened, and no punishment was ever dolled out. Further more, the pledge the EC voters have to take is like a promis. How many promises do you know of that have actually been kept by government officials? If they break thier pledge, it makes no difference. That is just one of the many corrupt instances of the EC.

Also, on a different note, Why does your avatar show your offline when your not? You might want to U2U SO and let him know, there might be some goofy problem with your account sinse they are switching tech.

Kid,

What is the percentage of dissenting votes in the EC since the beginning?

What is the percentage of dissenting EC votes that affected elections?

Like I said above, I do see your point. I just do not feel it is as big of an issue as you do. I would be in favor of eliminating the actual personel in the electoral college....just leaving the votes as is. That way no corruption could leak in. I am 100% confident, that a dissenting elector's vote, would not be allowed to cost an election. There is far too much controversy with such a serious issue like that. The only thing that could do in my opinion, is force the EC out of the picture.

And I have no idea about my avatar. Maybe I am in stealth mode so I can sneak up on respond on people. Actually, I do close and open ATS and BTS alot, so even if I am online, it might show that I am not, because I am not on the site.

[Edited on 11/24/2004 by Seapeople]