War on the Electoral College

[VanBummel]

I consider it a done deal. Once the Democrats decide to do something, they never stop. Republicans might play defense, nothing more.

This.

 

[Uriah]

You can take the money out of politics and create a different system. A national vote does not lead to more coruption unles you want it to.

I was pointing out that candidates will mostly campaign in big metro areas. If you are backed by big monied interests then you can easily advertise while not necessarily listening to the views of a majority of Americans(geographically).

 

[tttppp]

Removing parties sounds great (the test, not so much), but that's entirely separate from getting rid of the electoral college.


Romney is very much a part of the Republican party, in every way. You could hardly find a better representative of the GOP than him. Ron Paul is the one who's a Republican in name only.

I disagree. Ron Paul is what a republican is supposed to be. Everyone else is a fraud. They talk about the same things,but they want big government as much as democrats. Romney is as much of a fraud as anyone else.

 

[tttppp]

I was pointing out that candidates will mostly campaign in big metro areas. If you are backed by big monied interests then you can easily advertise while not necessarily listening to the views of a majority of Americans(geographically).

That's what happens now. Only swing states are listened to. Although I don't think they give a crap about anyones views.

 

[Uriah]

Actually, if we had a real electoral college system, where you only vote for the electors and not the presidential candidates, I'd probably take more interest in supporting that. As it is though, I just see what we have now as a poor excuse for something republican.

I am in favor of this. Or returning the selection of electors back to the state legislators. Or at the least, make it winner-take-all by congressional district.

 

[James Madison]

False dichotomy is false.

The electoral college decides who is elected president. Under the Constitution the president is little more than a figure head, having no observable impact on the day-to-day lives of the electorate. How the government is elected isn't as important as how the government manages its job as a protector of rights. The individual has authority to live their life as they see fit and without intervention from the state. Liberals are more intent on forcing their opinions upon the public by force, so naturally they will favor direct democracy, where the majority dictates what is acceptable to the minority.

 

[farreri]

Who's for proportional representation? If the Libertarian Party gets 5% of the vote, then they get 5% of the seats in congress. That's 5% more than we have now.

 

[tttppp]

It's still possible for CT to vote for Romney.

Impossible you say? Sure, for all intents and purposes. But you making the difference in a nationwide popular vote is probably even less likely than that.

The only reason Romney has even a very poor chance in CT is because he was governor next door. If it wasn't for that, he'd have no chance.

 

[farreri]

False dichotomy is false.

The electoral college decides who is elected president. Under the Constitution the president is little more than a figure head, having no observable impact on the day-to-day lives of the electorate. How the government is elected isn't as important as how the government manages its job as a protector of rights. The individual has authority to live their life as they see fit and without intervention from the state.

This is basically what I said earlier.

Liberals are more intent on forcing their opinions upon the public by force, so naturally they will favor direct democracy, where the majority dictates what is acceptable to the minority.

And conservatives don't?!?!?

 

[steph3n]

Who's for proportional representation? If the Libertarian Party gets 5% of the vote, then they get 5% of the seats in congress. That's 5% more than we have now.

It would grow to 10-15% if proportional representation were done, and there would even be a vocal green movement with 3-5%....

 

[erowe1]

The only reason Romney has even a very poor chance in CT is because he was governor next door. If it wasn't for that, he'd have no chance.

Pick any state you want.

Romney's odds of winning California are greater than the odds of your one vote deciding a national election. So are Obama's odds of winning Mississippi.

 

[James Madison]

This is basically what I said earlier.


And conservatives don't?!?!?

Conservatives aren't pushing for direct democracy.

 

[erowe1]

Conservatives aren't pushing for direct democracy.

It's really more of a partisan thing than an ideological thing. Switching to a national popular vote would help the D's and hurt the R's.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

More corruption from a 'national vote'? It certainly doesn't disincentivize it, so it could very well remain the same or increase, but I doubt such a system would reduce corruption. Not only that, such a system would pretty much make 90% of the country irrelevant. You have a better shot getting your own folks out to vote than trying to persuade on-the-fencers, and small-population areas. So, any state with >4,000,000 people would become irrelevant as well as homogenous states (e.g. New York for D's, Texas for R's). Irrelevant as in you won't even see a peep from the opposing parties. All electioneering would come down to large population centers that have large segment of homogenous folks. In other words Get out the Vote would be the primary method of campaigning. Debates would be meaningless, though they're pretty meaningless now-a-days anyways, as well as disenfranchising 90% of the States. There's a reason every State gets two Senators and there is an Electoral College.

You may say that such a system disenfranchises larger states, but larger states still have an equal say as anyone else - not no say. In a popular system these states literally have no say. Your 70,000 voters in bumsquat shitsville state - Wyoming for instance, aren't even a drop in the hat to a smaller New York sub-burrough. It's bad enough as it is now-a-days where certain states control other states - let's not exacerbate that situation.

 

[RPfan1992]

Im not sure if this will help but if every state had the same number of electoral votes that might even it out.

 

[James Madison]

Im not sure if this will help but if every state had the same number of electoral votes that might even it out.

Technically we already have that in the form the Senate. Of course, the Senate has abdicated much of its authority to the Executive.

 

[Smart3]

Im not sure if this will help but if every state had the same number of electoral votes that might even it out.

How would that help? The Dems would be guaranteed victory every election.

 

[erowe1]

How would that help? The Dems would be guaranteed victory every election.

It's the exact opposite.

If every state had equal electors, then the campaigns would focus on the 25 least populus states, which are generally Republican states.

 

[gwax23]

Cities are not isolated. The 10 largest cities in America form metro areas. These are easily identifiable and viewed more as 'media markets' rather than separate individual cities. The 10 largest metro areas in the USA are 81 million plus Americans.

The premise of the video uses an argument for the principal of equality. In the video, it is stated that the electoral college violates this principle while not addressing exactly what the electoral college is and why it was established; beyond superficial propaganda. The intent of the electoral college was not to make presidential candidates pay more attention to small states. It was created so each state had a fair voice in the selection of their administrator. Remember, the federal government represents and is a tool of the several sovereign states. The states represent the people and the federal government represents the states.

The video makes the point that the electoral college doesn't make candidates pay attention to small states. I agree with this and the fact that presidential candidates also don't give attention the the three largest states. The video uses this and more as evidence against the electoral college. It is clearly obvious to me that candidates don't pay attention to these states because American politics is completely polarized, divisive, and corrupt. Candidates don't have to pay attention to small states, large states, and most of the states because laws have been written in favor of the two major parties and against all other parties. If all parties, and individuals had fair access to running for office at the federal level then candidates would be more responsive to small states, large states, and most states.

Error of fact: not all states are winner take all. Nebraska and Maine are by congressional district and state-wide winner. States may choose how their electors are chosen. Electors had in the past, been chosen by state legislators.

What the authors of this video fail to see is not some violation of equality and fairness (the electoral college actually uses these principles for the states as the federal government was intended) but the underpinning of American republicanism by big-money fascist authoritarians. It is these individuals that have created a corrupt and politically divisive nation that has become unresponsive to it's people.

I find the video offensive when it states that you can win with only 22% of the popular vote, in a democracy. The United States of America is not a democracy. Please understand this. The founders consciously and specifically avoided becoming a democracy. Please learn why. The United States of America is a republic. Learn what that means.

So if the electoral college doesnt even help represent small states its one weak reason for existence is nullified. Not to mention even if it did represent the country over the city how is that fair exactly? If a huge % of the population lives in metro areas they SHOULD be represented in a democracy.

The fact is our current system including the electoral college dont allow multiple parties or multiple candidates to really run. Thats why we need Proportional party list elections for the legislature and Instant Runoff Voting for president (IRV: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting)

We shouldnt hold the constitution up as perfection created by god almighty himself. Its flawed and old document and if it was as perfect as everyone made it out to be we never would of been in the mess we are today.

Libertarians shouldnt have to be devout constitutionalists especially when the constitution is wrong. And it is when it comes to the electoral college.

 

[Uriah]

So if the electoral college doesnt even help represent small states its one weak reason for existence is nullified. Not to mention even if it did represent the country over the city how is that fair exactly? If a huge % of the population lives in metro areas they SHOULD be represented in a democracy.

The fact is our current system including the electoral college dont allow multiple parties or multiple candidates to really run. Thats why we need Proportional party list elections for the legislature and Instant Runoff Voting for president (IRV: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting)

We shouldnt hold the constitution up as perfection created by god almighty himself. Its flawed and old document and if it was as perfect as everyone made it out to be we never would of been in the mess we are today.

Libertarians shouldnt have to be devout constitutionalists especially when the constitution is wrong. And it is when it comes to the electoral college.

I think you missed my point. I said candidates don't pay attention to small states. Smalls states are represented in the electoral college. Each state has a fair and equal voice based upon two considerations: 1) the fact that they are a state within the USA and 2)population of the state. Under current law, the US House of Representatives is capped at 435 legislators. If the law is changed to increase this number then there will be more electors. The number of electors is equal to the number of senators and representatives plus 3 electors from DC.

I think the constitution is great. Not perfect. There are flaws that need to be addressed but moving this country to a directly elected president by popular vote is moving in the wrong direction. It is a fallacy to think this country wouldn't be in a mess today if the constitution was a perfect document. The people must at all times be vigorous in holding the government accountable if we the people do not want a mess. Unfortunately, millions of Americans have not been vigilant for decades upon decades.