It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Critics of the Electoral College are right to denounce it for handing victory to the loser of the popular vote twice in the past two decades. They are also correct to point out that it distorts our politics, including by encouraging presidential campaigns to concentrate their efforts in a few states that are not representative of the country at large. But the disempowerment of black voters needs to be added to that list of concerns, because it is core to what the Electoral College is and what it always has been.
The race-consciousness establishment—and retention—of the Electoral College has supported an entitlement program that our 21st-century democracy cannot justify. If people truly want ours to be a race-blind politics, they can start by plucking that strange, low-hanging fruit from the Constitution.
originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: LanceCorvette
A mass of ignorant people will always beat out a smaller group of educated people, vice versa, each with their own inherent dangers.
The electoral college helps prevent that mob rule and damn right, as you cited, CA is a massive blue failed state.
originally posted by: dawnstar
I dont believe our current electoral college system is much like what was originally intended. Back then, news didnt travel too fast. And there was no way any candidate could travel through the entire country for the people could become acquainted with them and their positions. In plain simple words a popular vote would have been a vote based on little real information. So, the people voted for the delegates who would represent a smaller area. They might very well know quite a bit about the delegates and the delegates were much more aware of the issues that were important to their area. And, since it was a smaller area, the delegates could travel around and campaign. The people could pick the one they felt they could trust to represent their interests. Then, if we overlook all the bribery and other misdeeds that was common, those delegates would hopefully go to washington, meet the candidates, judge which one would best represent the interests of those who sent them and place their vote.
That is how it was supposed to work back then. It's far from what we have today. Do I think that we have problems with the electoral college and should make some changes.. oh ya. The delegates should be allowed to vote for the candidate they believe will best represent the constituents of the area of the state, which might not be reflected by the popular vote of the state.
But at the same time, I think that an all out popular vote might give too much power to the big cities and their interests which sometimes seem to be at odds with those of the smaller farming communities. For instance the people living in ny city are probably not gonna be as concerned if their policies are driving the small farmers into bankruptcy as long as the big Corp is there to buy it up for pennies on the dollar and boost their stock portfolio in the process.
originally posted by: GreenGunther
If it’s racist, how did America get a black president?