The Wisdom of the Electoral College

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 10:34 AM
link   
It just makes me wonder at the forsightedness of our founding fathers, they sure were a smart bunch. I wonder if the push to do away with this will gain steam. Colorado failed to pass a measure that would have done away with the all or nothing electoral votes. What are the opinions on this?


Steve Farrell
Thursday, Nov. 4, 2004


But the Electoral College needs to stand.

To understand why, we must remember that the Founders gave us a republic, not a democracy, and with that, a system of mixed representation with mixed electoral methods, which rejected the one-person-one-vote, "the majority is the voice of God," like-it-or-not mindset.

There were reasons. Madison noted that the idea was to multiply and complicate the numbers of parties and interests that compete for power, and to multiply and complicate HOW they compete for power, in order to place a substantial check on centralization, that enemy of all freedom.

Some of us forget that old motto "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" had a sister motto, "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."



www.newsmax.com...




posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 10:38 AM
link   
I for one am glad that the Electorial Collage is there. I sure don't want NYC, LA, and Chicago (+ 3 or 4 other big cities) deciding things for the rest of us and that is basically what would happen if the Electorial Collage wasn't there.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ambient Sound I sure don't want NYC, LA, and Chicago (+ 3 or 4 other big cities) deciding things for the rest of us
In reality, because of the electoral college the 2004 election was much closer than if selection was through popular vote.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ambient Sound
I for one am glad that the Electoral Collage is there. I sure don't want NYC, LA, and Chicago (+ 3 or 4 other big cities) deciding things for the rest of us and that is basically what would happen if the Electoral Collage wasn't there.


So you would rather have two states decide rather than three or four big cities?

Do you think, say if Kerry gets three electoral votes, and Bush two, from one state, that the majority should rule and Kerry get all five? Or would it be best to count electoral votes separately?

Should a plan for elections which was designed for thousands who lived on half of the eastern seaboard over 200 years ago, but used for the millions of current Americans who live all the way to California and beyond?

Some people are like the Amish. Always wanting to live like it was the 18th century.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 10:52 AM
link   
I agree OS I researched on the humble beginnings of the electoral vote and its reason why they enacted it, but that was in a time in which people did not have education and were to spread apart and hard to find or for the matter to vote.

At first the electoral vote was only for people with political views and understanding and occurs (educated).

Now the population of this country is educated (or that is what we hope for) and we have minorities voting too something that we did not have back in the time.

Does it work still? Well I think the electoral vote by states needs to be reviewed.


[edit on 8-11-2004 by marg6043]



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 10:57 AM
link   
The EC should be disbanded. The popular vote should count for president. Read this thread for some excellent alternatives to the EC.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I have never believed in this system, and my opinion will always remain as such. The EC was started basically because our founding fathers thought the majority of the population was incapible of making this decision on thier own. They thought we were to stupid to vote. Times have changed and education is the norm. The EC can no longer represent the reason it was created.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by curme
So you would rather have two states decide rather than three or four big cities?


Yes. A State is really just a small country in effect. It is a geopolitical unit in which one can find both urban areas (well in most states) and rural areas. It more closely resembles the geographical and political distribution and diversity of the country than a major urban city does in almost all respects.


Do you think, say if Kerry gets three electoral votes, and Bush two, from one state, that the majority should rule and Kerry get all five? Or would it be best to count electoral votes separately?


No, at some point you have to stop and say "this is the size unit that we will use to determine this" (refering to states). The State level is the best point IMO, because as I stated above, most states are microcasms of the macrocasm that is our country.


Should a plan for elections which was designed for thousands who lived on half of the eastern seaboard over 200 years ago, but used for the millions of current Americans who live all the way to California and beyond?

Some people are like the Amish. Always wanting to live like it was the 18th century.


Hmmmm. I feel the design for elections that those men came up with are probably just as good as the rest of the ideas they had about running a country. Ready to scrap those too, Curme? You know, stuff like free speech, the right to life liberty and persuing happiness, all created equal, and so forth.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ambient Sound

Hmmmm. I feel the design for elections that those men came up with are probably just as good as the rest of the ideas they had about running a country. Ready to scrap those too, Curme? You know, stuff like free speech, the right to life liberty and persuing happiness, all created equal, and so forth.


No, I'm just happy they scapped the stuff about slaves, and women not voting, etc., next has to be the electorial college. Things change.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 11:24 AM
link   
First past the post systems have never been favoured over a system of proportional representation.

Of course CA, NY, and TX have big electoral votes, it's because they have the most people. You don't sensisble give Wyoming and Hawaii equal stakes in picking the president because they're much smaller and the vote can be influenced.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Well actually Ambient sound, let see the (free speach) well we still have it sort off, but now we have the patriot act to keep us at bay on it.

Hummm (pursuing happiness) well we still can dream on that one if you have enought money to do it.


(Created Equal) well even in the old good days we definitly were not considerated equal. And now well we got the gay issue to deal with, some may thing that they are not equal.

So well, we have not change much on some views after all. Oh I forgot women and minorities now vote. Good!!!!!!!!!!!!

[edit on 8-11-2004 by marg6043]



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Well I guess if you are on the losing side you dont like the EC, but I think it is a good thing, that way MOB/MASS rule can be controlled, the rural folks in America have a voice also.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 07:45 PM
link   
I honestly cannot agree with the electoral college. I come from a big electoral vote pusher (Texas) and I'll admit, my state is going Republican. No matter what.

I can't go to another state and vote. I can't rally up supporters of a similar political ideology as me and our votes still matter. i've heard countless people say, "Well, I would vote Kerry, but my state is going to Bush, so it really doesn't matter."

Sadly, its true.

If there is not a dense population of your political party in your state, you have no chance. You have no voice, and sure you're represented in the popular vote, but America likes it fast. Give me a percentage any day! Pulled together in a general location, my party COULD get some attention, but spread out and thanks to the electoral college's concept of only awarding the winner, no matter how close a second the next pulls, suffocates any different opinion from being heard. It puts a definite damper on 3rd party candidates, for, as I've said before, if the state is going to Bush, what's the point of voting Badnarik? Voting Nader? Hell, even voting kerry?

Every vote counts, but in the current state the electoral college is in, it only counts toward the category of "other."



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Well I guess if you are on the losing side you dont like the EC, but I think it is a good thing, that way MOB/MASS rule can be controlled, the rural folks in America have a voice also.


Umm... No Ed. Presidnt Bush was elected with the popular vote, and that would have been fine enough for me. The will of the people is not represented with the EC. It is special interest groups who influence the EC vote. Wanting to get rid of a corrupt voting system shows wisdom. Wanting to keep a voting system that DOESNOT represent the people is SOCIAL OPRESSION. So, which are you? Full of wisdom? or a supporter of opression of the peoples will?





new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join