Electoral College - Why do we need it?

[thuper]

Our forefathers thought that regular people alone weren't good enough to choose the leader of their country.

From Federalist No 58 by Hamilton

It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.

Another reason for the system was that Southern states had a smaller voting population because of slavery. Since slaves were counted in the census and went toward the number of representatives, it gave Southern states a stronger voice.

 

[thuper]

Originally posted by: LunarRay


The basis of our Nation was State Rights... each having its own rights under the US Constitution. That has eroded with the 14th and another but, as it did erode the other aspects did not.. Folks argue that the erosion that has occured to States Rights is a myth and only that which is Human Rights have been insured. Perhaps!
But, yes. If the voting by the States is such that the winner (Presidential) garners the majority of State's votes then those States should control.... LA, NYC, Chicago etc. have population centers and lots of folks. But, they live in different States... The entire issue is the way we have developed this Nation. States vs one giant State. We'd have no need for State Law etc... NO State rights... No.. I like it as is.

You're right, the basis of our nation was states' rights, UNDER THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION. That system did not work which is why they had to write our current constitution in order to form a more perfect UNION. They balanced state and federal powers, with the central federal powers above the states to unite the country as one body.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The key point in my stats is the ability of a candidate to marshall their resources most effectively.

By concentrating on the "key" areas, you obtain more bang(votes) per geographical $$ spent.

With the advent of modern communicationi that point is slightly diluted, however, newpaper ads/editorial, radio and local print/visual media all have more people per $$ spent in the urban areas.

That is the fear that the rural area would be ignored.

If a candiate has $100/day to spend, it makes more sense for it to it to reach 800 people vs 200 with those $$.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: thuper

Originally posted by: LunarRay


The basis of our Nation was State Rights... each having its own rights under the US Constitution. That has eroded with the 14th and another but, as it did erode the other aspects did not.. Folks argue that the erosion that has occured to States Rights is a myth and only that which is Human Rights have been insured. Perhaps!
But, yes. If the voting by the States is such that the winner (Presidential) garners the majority of State's votes then those States should control.... LA, NYC, Chicago etc. have population centers and lots of folks. But, they live in different States... The entire issue is the way we have developed this Nation. States vs one giant State. We'd have no need for State Law etc... NO State rights... No.. I like it as is.

You're right, the basis of our nation was states' rights, UNDER THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION. That system did not work which is why they had to write our current constitution in order to form a more perfect UNION. They balanced state and federal powers, with the central federal powers above the states to unite the country as one body.

The basis of our Nation continues to be States Rights. The Constitution Limits the Central Government... see the Tenth Amendment. Although the 14th does limit the States too - the erosion I spoke of. The general population have their say by the 'power of the purse' with the House and the States via the Senate controlling or blessing the more International and Judicial aspects. But, the President should be and is selected by the will of the States - even though not all states require electors to vote as they were selected to vote.
It is the States based on their population and their majority vote within those States who should select the President. If we eliminate States then fine... go with the popular vote.. since there would be no need for an electoral college... but, till then..

 

[thuper]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

The basis of our Nation continues to be States Rights. The Constitution Limits the Central Government... see the Tenth Amendment. Although the 14th does limit the States too - the erosion I spoke of. The general population have their say by the 'power of the purse' with the House and the States via the Senate controlling or blessing the more International and Judicial aspects. But, the President should be and is selected by the will of the States - even though not all states require electors to vote as they were selected to vote.
It is the States based on their population and their majority vote within those States who should select the President. If we eliminate States then fine... go with the popular vote.. since there would be no need for an electoral college... but, till then..

The whole bill of rights is limits on the central government. LIMITS ON ITS POWER OVER THE PEOPLE. These limits have also been spread to the states through the incorporation doctrine.
The tenth amendment is a statement of the states' residual powers. They get the residue, what's left over, when the central government is done defining its powers.

And this whole using the states to select the President is nonsense. If we are choosing a person who exercises power on a national level, we should vote on a national level.

 

[ToBeMe]

The most important reason for keeping the electoral vote in place is as follows.............

If it were not for the electoral college, large metropolitan areas in and around major cities could elect whomever they want and campaigning would most likely be limited mostly to large metro areas. Imagine if several of the largest metro areas decided they liked a candidate whom was against everything the rural areas and states were for and needed........................states like Wyoming, Montana, Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska North & South Dakota, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri, Kentucky, Alaska, etc. would have no influence on whom was elected while they maintained a majority of the area the USA covers..............

A grouping of NYC, LA, Miami, Dallas Ft. Worth & Chicago could easily elect whomever they supported even if it hurt the rest of the country..................You might respond that it wouldn't matter if they were the majority, but, that's just not true when you consider the needs of the country as a whole versus the needs of large metro areas................

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: thuper

Originally posted by: LunarRay

The basis of our Nation continues to be States Rights. The Constitution Limits the Central Government... see the Tenth Amendment. Although the 14th does limit the States too - the erosion I spoke of. The general population have their say by the 'power of the purse' with the House and the States via the Senate controlling or blessing the more International and Judicial aspects. But, the President should be and is selected by the will of the States - even though not all states require electors to vote as they were selected to vote.
It is the States based on their population and their majority vote within those States who should select the President. If we eliminate States then fine... go with the popular vote.. since there would be no need for an electoral college... but, till then..

The whole bill of rights is limits on the central government. LIMITS ON ITS POWER OVER THE PEOPLE. These limits have also been spread to the states through the incorporation doctrine.
The tenth amendment is a statement of the states' residual powers. They get the residue, what's left over, when the central government is done defining its powers.

And this whole using the states to select the President is nonsense. If we are choosing a person who exercises power on a national level, we should vote on a national level.

Nonsense you say.... Them idiots who developed the system hadn't a clue. Or did they? What were they arguing about back then? What was the comprimising all about? States Rights versus Centralized Rights! I know Hamilton... and Madison and even as they exist today embodied in the minds of those folks way east of me I cannot help but wonder about what it is to be a citizen of a State if it ain't to be different. We are sorta suppose to be sovereign to the extent we can be under the Constitution. I want it that way! And, as I pound my shoe on the table I'll be darned if I'll let someone erode my State Rights one bit more without a fight.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Whatever happened to people who love the state as much as the country? I love the United States. I love Tennessee. I could care less about California as a state. I want my vote to be measured against the feelings of others in my state and if the other candidate wins my state's electoral votes then so be it.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: ToBeMe
If it were not for the electoral college, large metropolitan areas in and around major cities could elect whomever they want and campaigning would most likely be limited mostly to large metro areas. Imagine if several of the largest metro areas decided they liked a candidate whom was against everything the rural areas and states were for and needed........................states like Wyoming, Montana, Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska North & South Dakota, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri, Kentucky, Alaska, etc. would have no influence on whom was elected while they maintained a majority of the area the USA covers..............

A grouping of NYC, LA, Miami, Dallas Ft. Worth & Chicago could easily elect whomever they supported even if it hurt the rest of the country..................You might respond that it wouldn't matter if they were the majority, but, that's just not true when you consider the needs of the country as a whole versus the needs of large metro areas................

There are many flaws with the above argument, but one obvious flaw is that the electoral college system actually amplifies the power of large metropolitan areas. The Chicago metropolitan area has a population of about 8.3 million, while the state of Illinois has a population of about 12.4 million, which by your argument means Chicago can determine the vote of Illinois, which actually amplifies the power of Chicago by about 50% because all of Illinois' electoral votes will be cast for Chicago's candidate instead of just 2/3 of them.

The electoral college actually disenfranshises rural voters in any state with large cities. Why is it better to disenfranchise many rural voters in states like Illinois, Texas, and California over a few in North Dakota and Alaska?

It's true that candidates have a limited amount of attention, but why is it better to pay attention to a few swing states instead of a few important metropolitan areas? Both methods ignore most of the country, so perhaps the solution to this problem isn't to be found in the electoral college.

Finally, why should people get more of a vote in determining their leadership based on where they live?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: ToBeMe
The most important reason for keeping the electoral vote in place is as follows.............

If it were not for the electoral college, large metropolitan areas in and around major cities could elect whomever they want and campaigning would most likely be limited mostly to large metro areas. Imagine if several of the largest metro areas decided they liked a candidate whom was against everything the rural areas and states were for and needed

your are a bit confused here; with a direct vote people would do the electing, not "large metropolitan areas." while it is ture that many people in those metropolitan areas may only be conserned with their own well being, many others have reltives and friends accross the country whos wellbeing would fator in on their voting. such voters in the metropolitan areas along with other voters across the country would insure that so pandering simply to the population centers would be far less effective than you make it out to be.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Whatever happened to people who love the state as much as the country? I love the United States. I love Tennessee. I could care less about California as a state. I want my vote to be measured against the feelings of others in my state and if the other candidate wins my state's electoral votes then so be it.

In much of the US, that type of localism disappeared after the ACW. In most of the rest, it disappeared over the second half of the 20th century once modern transportation enabled people to move every 7 years on average and to move between states about as easily as between towns.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Whatever happened to people who love the state as much as the country? I love the United States. I love Tennessee. I could care less about California as a state. I want my vote to be measured against the feelings of others in my state and if the other candidate wins my state's electoral votes then so be it.

In much of the US, that type of localism disappeared after the ACW. In most of the rest, it disappeared over the second half of the 20th century once modern transportation enabled people to move every 7 years on average and to move between states about as easily as between towns.

You need to come visit my state some time.

 

[TheBDB]

Originally posted by: ToBeMe
The most important reason for keeping the electoral vote in place is as follows.............

If it were not for the electoral college, large metropolitan areas in and around major cities could elect whomever they want and campaigning would most likely be limited mostly to large metro areas. Imagine if several of the largest metro areas decided they liked a candidate whom was against everything the rural areas and states were for and needed........................states like Wyoming, Montana, Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska North & South Dakota, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri, Kentucky, Alaska, etc. would have no influence on whom was elected while they maintained a majority of the area the USA covers..............

A grouping of NYC, LA, Miami, Dallas Ft. Worth & Chicago could easily elect whomever they supported even if it hurt the rest of the country..................You might respond that it wouldn't matter if they were the majority, but, that's just not true when you consider the needs of the country as a whole versus the needs of large metro areas................

The population in large metropolitan areas is just about evenly divided just like the rest of the country. It's not like they would vote as a bloc and dominate everything.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: TheBDB

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
There use to be a good reason, WAY before TV, radio, etc...

That argument works both ways. If we did away with the electoral college system then the candidates could stop focusing on 14 states and instead focus on 5 or 6 and let technology do the rest.

Right, they would focus on the 5 or 6 states WHERE ALL THE FVCKING PEOPLE LIVE!

Which is exactly why the other 40-45 states would not agree to repealling the electoral colllege. It protects their intrests.

 

[KFCrispy]

the US needs to eliminate the outdated electoral system and just go by popular vote. this is a democratic republic, so the presidential election, like any other representative, should be chosen directly by the people. this system impedes on the term "democracy" like no other.. it becomes a democratic-republic republic where people vote on a number of representatives to give all a state's votes to the presidential candidate! if the majority of voters are in LA and NYC, then so be it. if suddenly Dallas were to have the largest population, then so be it. why should states get to have a say in the National President? it should be chosen by the people. States have power in Congress.

some of you bring up how the candidates would be spending all their time appealing to the cities. so? they now spend all their time in those "key states", what is the difference? instead of the majority of the people they try to appeal to, it's now the small towns and cities in the smaller states where less people reside. i don't want my democratic President doing what a only small group of people asks for... i rather have him doing what the majority asks for.

i also would like to see referendum votes on big issues such as attacking another country for some unknown reason.. that would only be fair. some decisions should not be made by the sole representative of a country, because he/she is not necessarily representing his/her own people.. a way to balance this is to have referendums based on popular vote.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

We should return to one-county one-vote;

back at the start of our republic a state would be broken up into locations that got an electoral vote, in each one of those sections the electoral-representative would go on to the electoral collage and elect president.

Each man?s vote was still broken down based on state and location, but it was much smaller and thus your vote in your local community had a much more direct impact, instead of the ?winner take all? vote disenfranchisement we see now.

one-man-one-vote doesn't work in a representative republic. If you want one-man-one-vote then we shouldn't have 2 senators per state.

 

[judasmachine]

Democracy what a quaint notion. The state legislators all belong in the pocket of old rich white men and they vote accordingly, regardless of what people want. They fluff and spin until we believe them, and what they say. You can't trust power hungry men to do anyone's bidding but there own.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
Democracy what a quaint notion. The state legislators all belong in the pocket of old rich white men and they vote accordingly, regardless of what people want. They fluff and spin until we believe them, and what they say. You can't trust power hungry men to do anyone's bidding but there own.

If this is true, then use the proof you obviously possess to have your representative removed from office.

 

[Vic]

We need it so that presidential candidates even bother campaigning in small states at all. Or why would they when just making sure they won the populations of CA and NY would be enough? Small states could be ignored, while large states could be promised huge amounts of pork in return for their votes. The corruption and the diminishment of actual democracy would be obscene. Must be why the liberals want this so badly... :frown:

Originally posted by: cquark
The electoral college actually disenfranshises rural voters in any state with large cities. Why is it better to disenfranchise many rural voters in states like Illinois, Texas, and California over a few in North Dakota and Alaska?

Because those few in ND and AK make up entire states, fool. The rural voters in those larger states would still be able to hold sway in their respective statehouses, while those few in the small states would suddenly find themselves disenfranchised entirely.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Vic
We need it so that presidential candidates even bother campaigning in small states at all. Or why would they when just making sure they won the populations of CA and NY would be enough? Small states could be ignored, while large states could be promised huge amounts of pork in return for their votes. The corruption and the diminishment of actual democracy would be obscene. Must be why the liberals want this so badly... :frown:

Originally posted by: cquark
The electoral college actually disenfranshises rural voters in any state with large cities. Why is it better to disenfranchise many rural voters in states like Illinois, Texas, and California over a few in North Dakota and Alaska?

Because those few in ND and AK make up entire states, fool.

You know someone's lost an argument when they have nothing to resort to but random assertions and ad hominem attacks. You lose. Try to come up with a real argument next time.

 

[oreagan]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Whatever happened to people who love the state as much as the country? I love the United States. I love Tennessee. I could care less about California as a state. I want my vote to be measured against the feelings of others in my state and if the other candidate wins my state's electoral votes then so be it.

Agreed; some of us are still out here. I have a definite heirarchy of states that I love - Virginia, then South Carolina, then Tennessee. I've lived in the first two, my mom's family is from the last. Virginia, being my first and longest residence, will always be my home. I would be a much different person if I'd grown up elsewhere.

Robert E. Lee freed his slaves years before the Civil War on moral grounds. He fought for Virginia, not the South. That is the type of love I feel for Virginia.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Vic
We need it so that presidential candidates even bother campaigning in small states at all. Or why would they when just making sure they won the populations of CA and NY would be enough? Small states could be ignored, while large states could be promised huge amounts of pork in return for their votes. The corruption and the diminishment of actual democracy would be obscene. Must be why the liberals want this so badly... :frown:

Originally posted by: cquark
The electoral college actually disenfranshises rural voters in any state with large cities. Why is it better to disenfranchise many rural voters in states like Illinois, Texas, and California over a few in North Dakota and Alaska?

Because those few in ND and AK make up entire states, fool.

You know someone's lost an argument when they have nothing to resort to but random assertions and ad hominem attacks. You lose. Try to come up with a real argument next time.

That was a real argument. Respond to his statement minus the fool part.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: judasmachine
Democracy what a quaint notion. The state legislators all belong in the pocket of old rich white men and they vote accordingly, regardless of what people want. They fluff and spin until we believe them, and what they say. You can't trust power hungry men to do anyone's bidding but there own.

If this is true, then use the proof you obviously possess to have your representative removed from office.

I don't have to have proof, the fact that they run for office proves their power seeking. Power doesn't corrupt, it attracts the corruptible. I do admit that our version of democracy has worked alright for a long time now. But these people are for sale, they wear their price on their sleeve, this country isn't ruled by the people, it's ruled by special interest with lots of money.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: cquark
You know someone's lost an argument when they have nothing to resort to but random assertions and ad hominem attacks. You lose. Try to come up with a real argument next time.

Ooohh... nice cop out. You must have worked real hard to come up with that one because you sure didn't even try against my argument. I call you a fool because of your pompous tone combined with a lack of common sense. IMO you deserve it. Maybe you might want to consider that I live in a state with a smaller population and I would like to see my vote count for something without some pompous big-city-big-state <insert insult of choice here> trying to take away both my own franchise and that of everyone else in my state?

Now why don't you quit hiding in cowardly fear behind cries of "Ad hominem! Ad hominem!", and come up with your own REAL argument to counter mine?

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: cquark
You know someone's lost an argument when they have nothing to resort to but random assertions and ad hominem attacks. You lose. Try to come up with a real argument next time.

Ooohh... nice cop out.

Your ad hominems and assertions are the cop out. If you're willing to apologize and explain your argument, I'm willing to repond, but I wasted enough time putting up with all the flamers and their ad hominems on Usenet in the 80's and I'm not going to bother doing that again.