Electoral College - Why do we need it?

[ToBeMe]

Originally posted by: 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?

I can see, and agree with what you say to an extent.

First, while yes, your figures do hold true in Illinois, but do not/would not in others. In Missouri for example, in the last election, the two major cities and metro areas voted for Gore..........but an overwhelming majority voted for Bush........................Bush won the popular vote in Missouri and got the Electoral votes.

The second part, again, for the most part, I can appreciate your point..............

Third paragraph, as mentioned in the thread before is why the electoral college will most likely never go away............it would take attention away from many states and they will never agree with it.

Finally, why should people be given consideration based upon where they live? Well, for example, in all bu metro/city areas, hunting is a barbarick, unnesseccary cruelty to animals................but, in all other areas, hunting is needed to control the numbers of wildlife which would otherwise devestate crops and cause major problems with vehicle/big game collisions which cost people/insurance companies a lot of money............Why should the people of New York/Chicago/LA/Miami/Dallas dictate the policy of areas where something like hunting, or even farming is integral to the economy?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: cquark
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.

No apology will be forthcoming. You insulted me by advocating that I (and my entire state) be disenfranchised. My argument, however, is quite clear. Rural residents of large population states are represented in their statehouses, which counters any lack of franchise they might encounter when placed against large urban areas inside their states. Removing the electoral college would disenfranchise smaller population states from the presidential elections entirely, while doing nothing to to increase the franchise of those rural residents in large population states. In other words, removing the electoral college would remove franchise from everyone in a small population area, and concentrate it all in the major urban areas.
Is this difficult to understand? Or are you going to continue pompously feigning offense as a means to ignore my argument?

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: alchemize
So change the constitution.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: alchemize
So change the constitution.

Meh. Now elitists just like to talk about how the Constitution is a "living document" and try to backdoor it by preaching "democracy" when in fact they don't have the democratic supermajority required to make the change.

 

[Todd33]

Removing the electoral college would disenfranchise smaller population states from the presidential elections entirely, while doing nothing to to increase the franchise of those rural residents in large population states.

That's not true. Everyone gets one vote, so everyone in small states gets the same vote as the larger ones. Ending the electoral college would give back the votes to those states who are far more than 50% for one party. If CA goes 60%/40% that extra 10% of 30 million is 3 million votes that had no effect on the election. Should the president be picked by a small state or million of voters? Are we a confederation or a country?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Removing the electoral college would disenfranchise smaller population states from the presidential elections entirely, while doing nothing to to increase the franchise of those rural residents in large population states.

That's not true. Everyone gets one vote, so everyone in small states gets the same vote as the larger ones. Ending the electoral college would give back the votes to those states who are far more than 50% for one party. If CA goes 60%/40% that extra 10% of 30 million is 3 million votes that had no effect on the election. Should the president be picked by a small state or million of voters? Are we a confederation or a country?

We are a federation of states. Hence, the federal government and the state governments.

That extra 3 million votes (an exaggeration as not everyone in CA can or does vote, but no mind), would be more than sufficient for presidential candidates to fight for CA with bribes and pork while completely ignoring my home state to the north that has a total population of a little over 3 million.

 

[Todd33]

Little states should be ignored, they are well... little.

 

[BDawg]

I don't like the idea that there's a minimum of 3 electoral votes. With the current system, citizens in Montana and Alaska have proportionally more voting power than those in a populous state. IMHO, all votes should be equal. The popular vote should win straight up.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: BDawg
I don't like the idea that there's a minimum of 3 electoral votes. With the current system, citizens in Montana and Alaska have proportionally more voting power than those in a populous state. IMHO, all votes should be equal. The popular vote should win straight up.

bleh I like my vermont vote owning a NC vote. My vote is wroth about 2 of your votes in the last election. Not that either vote really mattered. I think we should get ride of the electrol college so bush will lose.

 

[csf]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: BDawg
I don't like the idea that there's a minimum of 3 electoral votes. With the current system, citizens in Montana and Alaska have proportionally more voting power than those in a populous state. IMHO, all votes should be equal. The popular vote should win straight up.

bleh I like my vermont vote owning a NC vote. My vote is wroth about 2 of your votes in the last election. Not that either vote really mattered. I think we should get ride of the electrol college so bush will lose.

Hey at least you're honest about your argument, as opposed to the other "constitution, founding fathers, representative democracy, tyranny of the majority be damned!" postings here.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: csf

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: BDawg
I don't like the idea that there's a minimum of 3 electoral votes. With the current system, citizens in Montana and Alaska have proportionally more voting power than those in a populous state. IMHO, all votes should be equal. The popular vote should win straight up.

bleh I like my vermont vote owning a NC vote. My vote is wroth about 2 of your votes in the last election. Not that either vote really mattered. I think we should get ride of the electrol college so bush will lose.

Hey at least you're honest about your argument, as opposed to the other "constitution, founding fathers, representative democracy, tyranny of the majority be damned!" postings here.

Well that isn't the only reason. Having an electrol college keeps the election under state control and it prevent the idiot in FL screwing up the whole election.

 

[Todd33]

Well that isn't the only reason. Having an electrol college keeps the election under state control and it prevent the idiot in FL screwing up the whole election.

But they did. If we had a normal democracy, Gore would have won even though they fixed things in Florida.

 

[Davegod75]

we don't

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Well that isn't the only reason. Having an electrol college keeps the election under state control and it prevent the idiot in FL screwing up the whole election.

But they did. If we had a normal democracy, Gore would have won even though they fixed things in Florida.

Bush lost the popular vote by just under .51% of the people voting. If the popular vote was used and it was a little closer then every state would be forced to do a recount.

 

[3chordcharlie]

If there was not an electoral college, there would be no 'hijacking' in states with or without large urban centres. There would also be no reason to campaign most heavily in large and/or swing states - because 'winning' a state would afford a candidate only their margin of victory in that state; not the whole state. Even 'safe' states don't vote anywhere near 100% for the winning party, right?

Thus all votes, everywhere becoe equally important!

 

[MovingTarget]

Our federal election for president is not by popular vote, nor should it be. If that was the case, why not lose the senate's 2-vote per state system and have bicameral legislature both based on representation? States matter, even if they aren't highly populated. If they didn't have a voice, then they would'nt have too much of an incentive to be in the union anyway.

Besides, all the benefits of modern technology and communication aside, they aren't foolproof. If you think the confusion over florida was terrible, just imagine recounts on a national scale. The electoral college not only serves to protect the rest of the country from a "tryanny of Metropolitain areas", "tyrrany of majority", etc. but it serves to compartmentalize said errors and their resolution. This isn't the first time the popular vote didn't elect the president here. It was designed so this wouldn't always be teh case (although having a popular majority kinda helps you know.)

 

[Todd33]

Bush lost the popular vote by just under .51% of the people voting. If the popular vote was used and it was a little closer then every state would be forced to do a recount.

I hardly think 500,000+ votes would require a recount. Polls are +/-4%, not elections.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Removing the electoral college would disenfranchise smaller population states from the presidential elections entirely, while doing nothing to to increase the franchise of those rural residents in large population states.

That's not true. Everyone gets one vote, so everyone in small states gets the same vote as the larger ones. Ending the electoral college would give back the votes to those states who are far more than 50% for one party. If CA goes 60%/40% that extra 10% of 30 million is 3 million votes that had no effect on the election. Should the president be picked by a small state or million of voters? Are we a confederation or a country?

We are a republic, if we can hold it.

 

[OrganizedChaos]

2000 election results by county

 

[Ferocious]

Originally posted by: OrganizedChaos
2000 election results by county

Yeah if I was a big landowner.....I'd probably vote for Bush also.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Ferocious

Originally posted by: OrganizedChaos
2000 election results by county

Yeah if I was a big landowner.....I'd probably vote for Bush also.

:roll:
Must you pimple farmers always grasp at straws, demonstrate a complete lack of understand of how our nation works, or make petulant demands to try to get your own way under the disguise of "democracy"?
Small towns are usually poor, and rural areas are not populated entirely by big landowners, but mostly by Joe Redneck with his double-wide or modest house on 5 acres. Truckers, loggers, small-town factory and mill workers, and the self-employed. They live in rural areas and small towns on purpose because they don't want the anthill life of the big cities or the enforced community of socialism. They respect hard work and hate freeloaders. Most of them are so poor that the only way to get their kids to college is through the military, so they are very patriotic on that. They have not, for the most part, enjoyed the real estate boom of the past 10-15 years that has taken place in the cities, so their wealth comparable to those in urban and suburban areas has gone down that much more.

<- was a mortgage banker in rural Southern Oregon and far Northern California ("the state of Jefferson") at one time, even did loans for people who purposefully weren't connected to the power grid. I've been out to their homes, pet their dogs, and sat at their kitchen tables. You?

 

[owensdj]

I'd like to see the Electoral College system scrapped in favor of counting the total popular vote because I think it would give the third party Libertarian Party some visibility on Election Night. With the Electoral College third parties don't get enough votes in any state to win it, so they don't get on the board at all. Counting the popular vote would at least put them on the board.

 

[cquark]

Our federal election for president is not by popular vote, nor should it be. If that was the case, why not lose the senate's 2-vote per state system and have bicameral legislature both based on representation?

It's true that we'll need to reform the senate after eliminating the electoral college, but that's a reason to move forward with reform of Presidential elections now instead of being a reason to delay.

I'd like to see the Electoral College system scrapped in favor of counting the total popular vote because I think it would give the third party Libertarian Party some visibility on Election Night. With the Electoral College third parties don't get enough votes in any state to win it, so they don't get on the board at all. Counting the popular vote would at least put them on the board.

I agree that it would be a good start to making third parties visible. We'll need to do more to get them representation, as the major parties have gerrymandered Congressional districts to fix the elections in favor of whichever party had control of the district at the time the lines were redrawn. Ideally, we'd eliminate Congressional districts and elect representatives from the overall population of the state, as people who vote for third parties would finally receive their proportional representation in Congress that way.

 

[KFCrispy]

Bush lost the popular vote by just under .51% of the people voting. If the popular vote was used and it was a little closer then every state would be forced to do a recount

better that every state do a recount than have this strange system where if you vote for an Independent or Republican in a Democrat state and vice versa, it doesn't count at all. every vote should count