-
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodman
Why do some people insist on sabotaging threads by shifting the whole discussion into something vastly different from the subject of the original post (mine)? Children - no children - schmildren - kerflugginer-ildren ... what does ANY of that have to do with the Electoral College?
Back to the topic:
JSE, Pete, Tug, Jack70 ... how come you seemingly intelligent gents buy into the sheer nonsense that you cite as the reason(s) why this inane idea should prevail and persist? How can you deny that it has become nothing more than a tool for the manipulation of an election? For that is precisely and exactly what it has become. Someone said that it was instituted mainly to get the less populous states to ratify the Constitution - thereby creating the United States of America is, I believe, the main reason for its creation. The idea that it would "protect" somehow the interests of the less populous states is bogus hogwash ... the fact that each state has TWO Senators in the U.S. Senate is the only thing that offers such "protection". The Electoral College does absolutely NOTHING for the smaller states in this regard ... nothing.
Some of your comments are 180 degrees out of phase with reality! Such as:
That is precisely one of my main points! That today, a given candidate who doesn't stand a chance of "winning" a given state has little reason to even bother visiting there - much less actually "campaigning" there. Furthermore, the number of "electoral votes" a state has is based upon POPULATION, isn't it? So, how does that enhance any small-population state's "say" in the election of a president? Also, how does the existence of an "Electoral College" give incentive to any voter to believe that his/her vote is meaningful? In actuality, the existence of an Electoral College has just the OPPOSITE effect. If YOU lived in a state where the vast majority of citizens held a political view which was the direct opposite of your own, what incentive would that give you to even bother going to the polls on election day? Knowing that the majority of citizens would be voting for the candidate that you personally didn't want, and that their votes would elect the "electors" for that candidate - wouldn't that be sufficient reason for you to stay home and not bother voting? Of course it would.
In closing, get real guys ... the Electoral College serves NO useful purpose whatsoever. It's time to abandon it and take a step toward restoring this country to what our forefathers envisioned ... a government, Of the People, By the People, and For the People. Amen!
Woodman,
The problem is that every one of the arguments you just made could be turned and used as an argument against the popular vote with just as much merit. Interesting huh? The reality is as someone else mentioned. Maybe it was Pete. The smaller states will never agree to do away with the College. It would take an Amendment and the votes would never be there. Right or wrong, I doubt it will ever happen. At least not in my lifetime.
So, back to this children no children thing. Just kidding! :D Sorry about the hijack.
JSE
-
Rats! I had another rather lengthy reply done and its disappeared! Oh well. Nice to see we're not devoid of such childish behavior on this board! Way to go guys! What the hell does having kids have to do with opinions on the merits of the EC?
Anyway, Woodman and Justlisten...
It seems to me that you guys are missing the main thrust of our arguments for the EC, which is that we are a REPUBLIC. You two seem to be convinced that we are a direct democracy and the presidency must reflect the will of the majority of the people. The presidential election has never been, is not now and should never be based on a popularity contest. IMHO the whole country suffers when the day arises that a president of a country made up of many states only has to gain the support of a small minority of those states to lead the country. The president must have a sufficient popular vote (but not necessarily the majority) AND have a sufficient distribution of support to show that the president has appealed to the majority of the populations within a majority of the states. The EC ensures this happens.
Here's a link to the same article i referenced last time we debated this. Its about 19 pages long, but well worth the read. Makes very cogent arguments for both sides. I know it won't change any minds, but i hope you all read it to try and better understand the two sides.
http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf
Respect (and a good weekend to all),
T-
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by tugmcmartin
Rats! I had another rather lengthy reply done and its disappeared!
What happened? Did you type it into the window then accidentally press the Esc key? That has happened to me all too many times. I try to write the posts in Notepad, then cut-and-paste into the window, but on occasion I take the shortcut and still get bitten! :(
Quote:
Originally Posted by tugmcmartin
Here's a link to the same article i referenced last time we debated this.
Thanks, Tug...great article...always good to know the "whys" behind the reasons for the system. Here's hoping people will take the time to understand it, without being closed-minded. Obviously, the pro-Gore crowd will be hesitant to acknowledge the worth of a system that resulted in the defeat of their candidate.
I think a great example for the need for electors is in Iraq. There, you have three major factions: the Kurds, the Shiites and the Sunni Moslems, all not too trusting of each other, to put it mildly! If a popular vote determined their leader, the majority Shiites would overpower the other factions. The minorities would be dominated and most certainly would face an uncertain and dismal destiny. Electors help to ensure fair treatment, and that's especially beneficial to minorities! Another good example is Israel. One option the Palestinians are pushing for would be to make all Palestinians full-fledged citizens of Israel. The sheer volume of their voting power would spell the death of Israel...why would Israel grant this seemingly innocent right to the Palestinians when it would have such certain dire consequences? Granting full-fledged democracy would provide the means to terminate democracy there.
Such examples are exaggerations of the problem, but seeing things in extremes may help to understand the U.S. situation where Pennsylvanians aren't chomping at the bit to cross the border and start killing all the West Virginians! :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodman
That today, a given candidate who doesn't stand a chance of "winning" a given state has little reason to even bother visiting there - much less actually "campaigning" there. Furthermore, the number of "electoral votes" a state has is based upon POPULATION, isn't it? So, how does that enhance any small-population state's "say" in the election of a president?
Well, many candidates will still visit these small states. If it weren't for the EC, they'd probably NEVER see a candidate and be able to voice their concerns. That is an improvement! It doesn't put Rhode Island in the same league as Texas, but it at least puts Rhode Island on the political map!
Read page 2 of the document that Tug linked to. The Roman Centurial system is a great example of how a group of poor voters were put on voting par with a group of wealthy voters. But Woodman, in one breath you're saying how you don't like the way the EC gives more voting power to smaller states and in the next breath you're saying how their voting power isn't all that "enhanced". Which is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodman
Knowing that the majority of citizens would be voting for the candidate that you personally didn't want, and that their votes would elect the "electors" for that candidate - wouldn't that be sufficient reason for you to stay home and not bother voting?
This problem is addressed nicely on page 14 of the document: "While this argument has a certain surface plausibility, it fails to account for the fact that presidential elections do not occur in a vacuum. States also conduct other elections (for U.S. Senators, U.S. Representatives, State Governors, State legislators, and a host of local officials) in which these same incentives and disincentives are likely to operate, if at all, with an even greater force." In other words, if you're certain that your candidate for the national race is going to be defeated, the fact that your vote may help to elect a local or state candidate may be enough to get you to the polls, and while there, why not toss a "wasted" vote to your national candidate? Who knows? Maybe the backers of the favored candidate all decide to stay home, figuring that everyone else would vote the guy in! Your choice may just possibly win!
Also, on page 17 is an extremely interesting evaluation of how the EC actually encourages a 2-party system and how that system is good for the nation. It makes perfect sense to me!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justlisten2
It was the Senate that was put in place to make sure small states had a vote. Every state has 2 Senators, no matter how large or small. So Rhode Island has the same voice in the Senate that California has.
Yes, and that same "fairness" that should result in Representatives and Senators in furthering the interests of their states is mimicked in the Electoral College system. But instead of providing a voice in the active government, the EC extends that fairness for the states to choose in the executive leadership during an election. Voting for leaders is not the same as having representatives negotiating for your state's welfare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tugmcmartin
The men who framed the constitution wisely acknowledged that as a republic, it was important to have a leader who was going to appeal to the largest block of STATE interests.
The E.C. wasn't perfect right out of the box, and isn't it interesting to see how it has evolved from its initial conception? They ran into several "incidents" that warranted adjustments to it, but after those tweaks, it has served us quite well! Some of those glitches sound like they were magnitudes worse than the Bush/Gore/Florida fun we had in 2000! Did you read about the Tilden fiasco in 1876 (on page 8)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justlisten2
children change your life possibly more than you could ever know. I was once a young Republican blowhard too. I once voted for Reagan, believe it or not. Children change your politcal views on eductaion, government, and all sorts things that those without children can never imagine.
Well, despite the fact that I disagree with most of what Justlisten2 says politically, I can see half a point here. I don't have children either, but from what I've seen, many times children will improve the attitude of parents, giving them a sense of responsibility for someone other than themselves. That CAN change someone's political views, but it usually turns less responsible people (Democrats) into more responsible people (Republicans), NOT the other way around! Loose morals get tightened up in the interest of protecting those children. The only way I think you'd go the "other way" is if you demand that the government shower your children with freebies out the ying-yang. "Dump lots of money on our classrooms. We need 2.4GhZ computers on every desk and no more than 2 students per teacher".
But it's ONLY half a point because as Tug so aptly put it: "What the hell does having kids have to do with opinions on the merits of the EC?
-
kids... & Z college
KIDS-
A disturbing/troubling(?) trend today is that many married adults with the education, means, and good temperament/ethics to be good parents, are having LESS children (or none) compared to past generations. On the other hand, those with less education and means are having MORE kids today. Not a good trend.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE REDUX-
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodman
JSE, Pete, Tug, Jack70 ... how come you seemingly intelligent gents buy into the sheer nonsense that you cite as the reason(s) why this inane idea should prevail and persist?
I don't necessarily think it should prevail, or that it's ALL good... just that there were: (1) good reasons for how/why it was devised... and (2) there's NO WAY you can get rid of it w/o a new constitutional convention (rather unlikely... it's been floated before). That's all.
So your whole outrage: ....It's time to abandon it and take a step toward restoring this country to what our forefathers envisioned...blah blah bla is simply pissing in the wind.
-
Reply to Piece-It Pete
Quote:
Originally Posted by piece-it pete
Dang, our collective memory's in the dumpster.
And wow you're right about one thing: we are definitely NOT united people - just ask NPR about Bush voters lol!
Laz, when you say the college is a vestige, do you mean the Republic is dead?
Pete
No, the Republic is not dead, but it may be like the old fellow on "Monty Python & the Holy Grail" who did not want to get on the cart because he was not quite dead yet. For some people, the Republic of Texas, as opposed to the State of Texas, is a going thing. That Republic even has its official/unofficlal President. There are different levels of understanding here, but with our liberties being restricted more and more, and with American sovreignty being compromised more and more by such things as UN membership and NAFTA, who the hell says anymore: "America first, without apology!"??
The trend seems clear to me...
Laz
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeskibuff
I think a great example for the need for electors is in Iraq. There, you have three major factions: the Kurds, the Shiites and the Sunni Moslems, all not too trusting of each other, to put it mildly! If a popular vote determined their leader, the majority Shiites would overpower the other factions. The minorities would be dominated and most certainly would face an uncertain and dismal destiny. Electors help to ensure fair treatment, and that's especially beneficial to minorities! Another good example is Israel. One option the Palestinians are pushing for would be to make all Palestinians full-fledged citizens of Israel. The sheer volume of their voting power would spell the death of Israel...why would Israel grant this seemingly innocent right to the Palestinians when it would have such certain dire consequences? Granting full-fledged democracy would provide the means to terminate democracy there.
A more local example would be the state of New York. The metropolitan area of New York city essentially determines the outcome of all state-wide elections.
-Bruce
|