why not to get rid of the Electoral College look at the last election in califormia polosi and boxer both lost the state but won the election becouse of San fransisco and LA the only 2 places they won. the whole state of california has to deal with what those 2 liberal life long pains in the A@@ want and do becouse LA and San fran ( liberal havens for the every thing that is wrong with california and the US ) voted them in

You want this to be a debate thread, okay, so here are views that stand in opposition to everyone else’ views here.

Abolish the Electoral College? I think not. In fact, the EC would serve closer to the values of our Founding Fathers if we used it as they intended. Restrict the election of President only to the EC, of course the people can vote and if the members of the EC from their state decide to follow the people’s voice, so be it. But that will be entirely their choice. For President all of the members of the EC should have a list of candidates and vote on their choice until someone reaches a majority, each new round the candidate with the lowest votes is dropped.

At the same time restrict voting again only to land owners with one vote per family. This way it is not completely ‘sexist’ because if there is a single woman owning land then she can vote for her family. Jackson and his band of populist demagogues ruined the original intent of the EC by reducing it to the decision of whoever wins plurality of the vote in a single state.

As for term limits, they were not enacted for a reason. We need far fewer people able to vote, thus far fewer people able to reside in a particular office. So long as a man is elected to the House by the people in his District, he shall serve however long suits him. At the same time our Senators should be chosen by the state governments again, not the popular vote of its citizenry.

Judges should retain their lifelong tenure once appointed. Our problem is not with judges’ tenure, it is with who we select as Judges. The less democratic action is exercised in America, the better we all shall be.

A few points here, because I agree in a sense, but not entirely:

- There were two main purposes to the electoral college. 1) To act as a buffer between the populace and the presidency. Obviously the educational differences between today and then are stark regardless of how we feel about the state of education today. Additionally, information and the people are much closer. and 2) To give equal representation by the states to prevent a handful of states taking greater importance than smaller or less populace states.
- I can agree that the electoral college is out of date as a mechanism and is not needed, but I'd still suggest we go by the winner of the majority of the states with a tiebreaker being the popular vote should such an occurrence happen.
- As for term limits, I can agree that the greater the change in people the less chance of political and judicial stagnancy.

Peace
KJ

I am in agreement with Misoir on this matter. I will of course try not to rehash his remarks on the process of which we elect the president (or the assumed name of the Electoral College). His one important point though is the destructive outcome of the plurality system.

There are a few things to note in this regard: We have no national elections; rather we have local and state elections for persons to a federal office. The electoral process for elevating a person to the Office of the Presidency is to -- as others have pointed out -- ensure that each State, regardless of population, are given a fair shot at having their say on who will be president.

Moving to a popular vote (although many believe this is the process already in place; America has a very anemic understanding of the process) would empower such population centers as Los Angeles, New York and Chicago; to name a few and would leave smaller center's of populations to have no voice whatsoever.

If one would understand the electoral process for selection of the president, one could see that it is highly democratic! But people fail to realize that they must be involved at their respective State level politics to help shape who gets elected/selected as an elector.

The problem there of course is....how many actually participate at the local/state levels (in which the most "democracy" is afforded)? My guess; an extremely small percentage of persons.

Hamilton, Federalist Paper 68

They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office.

The system isn't broken (save the changes to a plurality voting scheme system); the People are just not educated nor care about participating in self-government.