The Electoral College-what do you think?

[Mrs Mungo]

There was bit of talk about the Electoral College in one of the other threads and I thought it was a worthy topic to discuss in its own thread.

 

So, the US Electoral College. It was conceived as part of the original US Consitution. However, this is a topic that has repeatedly come up for debate as a Constitutional Amendment topic.

 

Why a republica over a democracy?

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_10.html

 

Hamilton's design for the Electoral College:

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_68.html

 

So, what do you think? Do you like or dislike the Electoral College and why?

[kokotg]

I think it's outdated and undemocratic. I can't see how it would ever get changed, though, since it would require a constitutional amendment which would mean smaller states voting to give up a good deal of their power. Maine and Nebraska both distribute electoral votes proportionally...I imagine more states adopting that system is our best chance of changing things so that one actually has to win the popular vote to become president. I'm curious to read the responses....I actually have no idea what the argument FOR the electoral college in this day and age is.

[Greta]

I think it's outdated and undemocratic. I can't see how it would ever get changed, though, since it would require a constitutional amendment which would mean smaller states voting to give up a good deal of their power. Maine and Nebraska both distribute electoral votes proportionally...I imagine more states adopting that system is our best chance of changing things so that one actually has to win the popular vote to become president. I'm curious to read the responses....I actually have no idea what the argument FOR the electoral college in this day and age is.

 

:iagree: Yes, I ditto all of that!

 

Thanks for the links, MrsMungo. I'm going to check them out.

[Mrs Mungo]

Interesting article in favor of the Electoral College (looking for more):

 

http://www.avagara.com/e_c/ec_directdanger.htm

 

Article showing both sides:

http://tinyurl.com/4rse3

 

articles on reform options:

http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/reform.htm

 

http://gning.org/electoral.html

[Jenny in Atl]

I sure don't want a straight democracy. Mob rule! Yuck, sorry no way. Not sure the EC works well either. No easy answer.

 

Those who say they want to live in a true democracy must not care for their individual choices/freedoms. I find it interesting because many who want one man one vote, will be the first to lose rights they are seeking to have or already have. Just look at the recent court ruling in California. If the majority had their way... well need I say more.

[cornopean]

Is one of the arguments for the EC that it gives the smaller states more clout?

[kokotg]

I sure don't want a straight democracy. Mob rule! Yuck, sorry no way. Not sure the EC works well either. No easy answer.

 

 

I don't want a straight democracy about everything, but I do want the president to be the person who wins the popular vote (which is all the electoral college is about). I mean, the alternative is that the person who loses the popular vote becomes president. I started to write something in my earlier post about how I could see the need for disproportionate representation for smaller states in congress, but then I realized that had nothing to do with the electoral college, so I stopped.

 

Interesting links, Mrs. Mungo. The "pro" argument that seems the most clear cut to me is that the electoral college encourages the two party system. Interesting in light of some other discussions on the board of late--not everyone sees that as a pro. Not sure what I think about it.

[K&Rs Mom]

The "pro" argument that seems the most clear cut to me is that the electoral college encourages the two party system. Interesting in light of some other discussions on the board of late--not everyone sees that as a pro. Not sure what I think about it.

 

I've been thinking about this lately too. Why do we view the main two as a real part of the gov't? The state pays for primary elections (at least mine does), but how they assemble their candidates should be the business of the party, not the government. These two have become so entrenched, we can hardly imagine our system any different, but that's not how it's supposed to be (the Constitution & all that). :001_huh:

[Mrs Mungo]

I think the best choice is reforming the EC. I disagree with the winner-takes-all thing. I think if you had a system in which a proportion of the electorates in a state went to the candidates based on the proportion of the vote then you could have a viable third party candidate without having 28 candidates to choose from as threatened by the popular vote theory.

[Phred]

All well and good until the day when our democracy up and elects Snoopy. Then what? That's why we have an electoral congress. It's the buffer between the great unwashed masses who, believe it or not, just might one day elect a cartoon character. Some might say they already have. The electoral congress is there to prevent the highest office in the land from being handed over to someone who simply isn't able to handle it even though the electorate thinks it's funny to elect them.

 

Our founders never thought of mass media and television... they never imagined the internet and the immediacy that we face today. My goodness... the winners of the early elections found out a week or so after the results were tallied. Their fear was that a man might rise to prominence in just one state and that he might try to take the office of president based upon that popularity alone. This would force men to campaign in all thirteen states. At a time when to do so was quite a trial.

 

No, we don't live in a democracy, we live in a democratic republic. I see no reason that we shouldn't have a buffer between the vast ignorant masses of people who can vote with no more education than being able to make an X on the registration slip and the office of the President. What I would like to see is some sort of procedure in place as to who becomes the delegates to that congress. It really is more important than just a rubber stamp. One day they may be called upon to prevent some demigog from gaining the most powerful office on the planet. It would be nice to know they weren't just being repaid for selling the most girlscout cookies in outer mongolia.

[Fourmother]

It's the buffer between the great unwashed masses who, believe it or not, just might one day elect a cartoon character. Some might say they already have. The electoral congress is there to prevent the highest office in the land from being handed over to someone who simply isn't able to handle it even though the electorate thinks it's funny to elect them.

 

:rofl::smilielol5::lol::D

 

I see no reason that we shouldn't have a buffer between the vast ignorant masses of people who can vote with no more education than being able to make an X on the registration slip and the office of the President.

 

Some would argue that the Supreme Court did something like this in Bush v. Gore. Anyway, if the vast masses are too ignorant to be completely trusted to vote, why allow it? Why not go back to voting restrictions from the Jim Crow south? Or only allow property owners to vote like the ancient Greeks? What's the point of allowing people to vote their conscious if the state has to have a mechanism to nullify that vote when it's "wrong." And who is to decide the manner and degree of wrongness?

 

Intellectually, I can understand the point here, but it makes me uncomfortable. Some of the sharpest political analysis I've ever heard has been at the barber shop or the family reunion where I was one of a very few who would be considered educated. Some would and have argued that people like this shouldn't be allowed to vote, and blood was shed to earn them the right. This is a slippery slope in my opinion.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

never mind

[kokotg]

I'm pretty sure Snoopy's not eligible for the presidency :lol:. Sure, this is one of the original arguments for the electoral college--that people aren't educated or informed enough to make the decision themselves--but if the electors were ever to actually use their power to overthrow the will of the voters today, I would pretty much expect rioting in the streets. Lots of it. Of course, another buffer against one person getting too much power is that the executive branch isn't supposed to have nearly as much power as it does today.

 

Man, Phred--I hope you're not planning on running for president anytime soon--if Barack Obama's an "elitist" I'd hate to hear how your opponents would try to brand you :lol:.

[Liberty]

I haven't read the articles, but here are my thoughts.

 

We don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic, so I don't think we should elect based on popular vote.

 

Think of it this way: if we elected based on popular vote, candidates would only have to visit America's top 5 or so cities in population to campaign. The rest of the country wouild be SOL. Candidates would only have to worry about the concerns of urban citizens. Their whole platform woiuld be centered around how to best meet the needs of people living in the thick of New York City, Houston, ATlanta, etc... Does anyone here disagree that the qualities most wanted in a President might be different for, say, a farmer in Nebraska? Or, a homeschooler in rural Michigan? Or, a coal miner in Virginia? Or, a park ranger in Yellowstone? Or, (whether we agree with their lifestyle or not) an FLDS church member in Texas?

 

I think we've seen in the Democratic primaries just how different some of the mind sets and concerns are from state to state. When Clinton/Obama were in Pennsylvania, they talked about much different things then when they campaigned along the border states, etc...

 

Should small population states be left in the dust when it comes to choosing the leader of our country? I say no.

[Krista in LA]

I haven't read the articles, but here are my thoughts.

 

We don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic, so I don't think we should elect based on popular vote.

 

Think of it this way: if we elected based on popular vote, candidates would only have to visit America's top 5 or so cities in population to campaign. The rest of the country wouild be SOL. Candidates would only have to worry about the concerns of urban citizens. Their whole platform woiuld be centered around how to best meet the needs of people living in the thick of New York City, Houston, ATlanta, etc... Does anyone here disagree that the qualities most wanted in a President might be different for, say, a farmer in Nebraska? Or, a homeschooler in rural Michigan? Or, a coal miner in Virginia? Or, a park ranger in Yellowstone? Or, (whether we agree with their lifestyle or not) an FLDS church member in Texas?

 

Should small population states be left in the dust when it comes to choosing the leader of our country? I say no.

 

:iagree: Which is also one reason why it's good to not have a national primary as well - many of the smaller states would essentially be left out in the whole process.

[kokotg]

This is why I can see the need for disproportionate representation in congress...smaller states need bridges built, too. But I don't see the electoral college causing candidates to campaign (that's some impressive unintentional alliteration there) evenly throughout the country. It means campaigning and advertising is focused heavily in a handful of swing states. I don't remember seeing a single campaign ad in 2004 during the general election campaign (in GA), nor did I get a single call from either of the campaigns. I do see your point about different parts of the country having different concerns, but I don't think our current system really addresses that problem well, either. And wrt to the primary--again, yes, a national primary would leave smaller states out, but our current primary system (usually) means that a couple of smaller states have a ridiculous amount of say in determining candidates. It's not, it seems to me, MORE fair than a national primary...it's just unfair in a different way.

 

I am following this discussion with interest....it's giving me a lot of new stuff to think about.

[Michelle in MO]

Is one of the arguments for the EC that it gives the smaller states more clout?

 

It's not a perfect system, but I really think this is one of the beauties of American democracy, and I'm not in favor of discarding it. The electoral college is designed to give the smaller states an equal footing with larger states, to prevent exactly what Jenny in Atlanta is saying---mob rule. It helps to "level the playing field," so to speak.

 

No, it's certainly not perfect, but then there are many imperfections in American politics, and probably some "drift" in interpretation away from the Constitution. Still, it tends to work, overall.

 

Good topic, Mrs. Mungo!

[Storm Bay]

Finally here! I think that valid arguments have been made on both sides of the fence. If I thought that eliminating the electoral college would fix all the political woes in the country, I'd be all for it. But, honestly, I think it hardly matters because the media appears to run the election. Really. When do you see a political candidate who is mostly ignored by the media get anywhere? You don't.

 

The question is, do we still have freedom of press in practice when the bulk of the media is owned by so few people?

 

As for mob rule, I don't really think that's the case. There's no electoral college in Canada, and, while no better off politically (nor worse, not if you examine things very closely it's really not--at least not from my perspective living in Massachusetts) does not have an electoral system. To most Canadians I spoke with this about, it always looks like the Presidential race is just a popularity contest.

 

In Canada you don't have a mob election for a Prime Minister. What you do is elect a Member of Parliament (similar to a Congressman) and the party with the majority of MPs elected has their head of their party sit as PM. The menmbers of the party are the ones who vote for the head of the party. The PM has to have won a seat in the house in order to sit as PM, so he or she has also won a more local election. It's more complicated than that, of course, just like the American system is more complicated than it first appears.

 

The fear of mob rule is based on the idea that the uneducated masses don't know what they're doing. But I'm not particularly impressed with what the so-called educated masses are doing in American politics (or Canadian politics, quite frankly, but that's another discussion.) Yes, I'm at the point were I think that there are now educated masses with so many college graduates who don't think beyond what the media and/or their professors have promulgated. Politics has become big business, or at least appears to be very influenced by big business.

 

I hate the electoral system, but I can't say that removing it will fix anything. If I thought it were run with integrity, I wouldn't have so much trouble with it.

[kokotg]

So about proportional division of electoral votes--that would satisfy most of the concerns of loyal electoral college devotees, yes? small states would still have the same representation, the "unwashed masses" could still be overridden if necessary to make Phred feel better, but it would also solve a lot of the problems of the current system--less likely for popular vote and electoral vote not to line up (I'm assuming; math is not my strongest subject) and swing states would no longer get all the attention. What am I missing? Should I call someone up and tell them we've solved this whole thing? ;)