Electorial College changes

[CERuppel]

Just got done reading a discussion about the new election reform bill. Well that bill only changes how the votes are taken (machines, databases...) and does nothing about things like attack ads and slander. However the discussion got sidetracked and mutated into a 'what is the CURRENT role of the electorial college' debate.

The problem that the EC was created to correct is population density. You see if the vote were just popular vote than the voters of just the nine biggest cities would be able to decide the election. So the EC sets up a balancing act to correct this imbalance.

However, as one person pointed out, it has unbalanced in the oppisite way, and in new ways. You see the voters of Ancorage Alaska have over three times the number of EC votes per person than does NYC (for example) unbalancing the system in favor of lower population density. Or the fact that most (all?) states are an all or nothing thing, where a majority of just a few votes gets the winner all the EC votes. This leaves the losers with no voice in the EC.

Now on to what I see as a way to correct this imbalance. If the pols will allow it (big doubt, it would step on someones toes).

Allow each state 100 EC votes, and assign them according to the voting percentages within the state. This would give voice to those without it under the current system. It would flatten the density question partially, but not completely.

Hopefully the system would also do away with that nagging loop hole. What loop hole you ask? Glad you asked. You see, the EC delagates are not held to any given requirements of voting. What that means is that they are not forced to vote the way the voters of thier state did. Thats right, they could elect Mickey Mouse if they wanted, and the voting public would have no say in the matter.

Any way, that is my opinion, whats yours?

Popular vote. Not the EC.

[RayH]

Only the votes from California should count in the Presidential election.

[Epidemic]

The problem with just a popular vote is that only nine area's concerns would be met. The needs of NYC are not any more correct than the needs of alaska. Yet the life lead in both of those places needs to be represented.

Sorta like NYC resident thinking that you have to build a that we should have public transportation everwhere and when you look at alaska that would not be practical. There are a million differences between rural america and NYC or sanfrancisco.

Or someone who lives in NYC thinking that hunting has no value so it should be banned.

All election promises would only need be kept in he big 9.

Popular vote would be a bad thing.

I kinda like the 100 EC votes per state thing.

Or someone who lives in NYC thinking that hunting has no value so it should be banned.

[Marunad]

Complicated question.... The Senate and the way that the Senate is set up, ie. 2 Senators per state regardless of the state's population, was set up as a balance to the House of Representatives which of course is based on a state's population. One of the reasons for the setup was the fear of a charismatic type leader/candidate such as England's Oliver Cromwell or, at the time, a Napoleon and such a person's potential ability to "charm the masses". Same concept was applied as part of the reason for the Electoral College.

Remember, originally, the President was not elected by a direct vote of the people at all. As often as our media tells us that the US is a democracy that is not actually accurate. We are a Republic which some call a "representative democracy." In some respects there's not a great deal of distinction between a republic and a democracy. The result of what we have, though, is the final product of the battle between the Alexander Hamilton faction and the Thomas Jefferson faction that ensued for years.

For anyone that is interested in this sort of thing, check out THE FEDERALIST PAPERS, and THE ANTI-FEDERALIST PAPERS.

In any event, the Electoral College exists, in part, because we are NOT a true democracy as one of the several 'filters' in place between the voter and the final result.

[RADAR1797]

There is one thing left out. Alaskans may have 3 times the "say", but they most likely have 3 times the land or are at least 3 times more dependent on the land than the occupants of a major city. I believe the electoral college represents the balance of protecting life, liberty and property.

-RADAR

Originally posted by surreal
Popular vote. Not the EC.

I have no idea why I posted that... I think I was asleep!

[cyphen]

Not to get too far off topic here, but similarly, representatives no longer represent. We vote for people who are supposed to represent the desires of their constituents, and somehow this got warped and twisted into a state where we elect people based on their views, not ours.

I don't care what a politician thinks - it shouldn't matter. A politician should be elected not on a particular platform of how he or she feels about certain issues, but how well they reflect the needs and desires of the people they represent. This kind of "Combo Value meal" approach to politics really irks me. Seriously, elections are like going thru a fast food drive thru:

#1: Pro life with a side of gun control
#2: Pro Choice with Election Reform and a SuperSized Government Spending Policy
#3: More Jobs with Supersized Taxes
etc, etc, ... etc.

What if i want a little of #1, with a bit of #2, and a skosh of #3? Or worse yet, what if i want the chicken? It's not even offered!

True, we are theoretically in a Republic - that was the idea - but it's barely even the case any more... Must we resort to such trite terms as "taxation without representation"? Are we truly being represented? Because we're sure as he** are being taxed!

Would you hire a builder to put an addition on your house that he thinks should be there, or one that you want?

I personally think that the best form of government is the one where i rule the world. I'm pretty fair, i think. Vote for me - world tyrant.. .errr... leader!

Yup, ruling the world is for me. As long as there isn't a lot of paperwork...

Yup, ruling the world is for me. As long as there isn't a lot of paperwork...

I can't see GWB doing paperwork.

But I guess he's a good ruler. By ruler standards anyway.