The time has come boys and girls ...

[woodman]

... for us to demand that the stupid and inane Electoral College be abolished. If it ever had a useful purpose (which I've yet to be convinced that it ever did), that time was at least 10,000 years ago - and not applicable today.

What it has become in this modern day and age, is simply a "tool" for the manipulation of a presidential election, and is thus un-democratic and un-American and un-sound and un-reasonable. It serves no useful purpose whatsoever. Let's get rid of it.

[JSE]

Oh man, this could get ugly.

The way I see it is this...........

The electoral college gives a voice to less populated states. If there was no college, the candidate would simply need to win California, NY and Texas and the would pretty much have it wrapped up. I know my numbers are probably off a bit, but you get the picture. Is that fair?

I probably have more to say but the brain is fried right now. Crunchin numbers all night and day for two weeks.

JSE

[piece-it pete]

... for us to demand that the stupid and inane Electoral College be abolished. If it ever had a useful purpose (which I've yet to be convinced that it ever did), that time was at least 10,000 years ago - and not applicable today.

What it has become in this modern day and age, is simply a "tool" for the manipulation of a presidential election, and is thus un-democratic and un-American and un-sound and un-reasonable. It serves no useful purpose whatsoever. Let's get rid of it.

Right now it helps the GOP. Eventually it'll help the Dems - tick-tock-tick-tock.

But since it takes 2/3 of the states to pass an Amendment it'll never be scrapped anyway(as long as we're free). Those sparsely populated states will NEVER hand over their authority to the cities. I'm not sure having the cities run things is a good idea anyway - look at the mess most of them are in. A little rub: Most are Democrat machine run.

Maybe we can have the current Supreme Court declare the Constitution unconstitutional?? (They might do it - and that's not funny!)

How is one of the defining sub-systems in the Constitution un-American :)?

Pete

[trollgirl]

... for us to demand that the stupid and inane Electoral College be abolished. If it ever had a useful purpose (which I've yet to be convinced that it ever did), that time was at least 10,000 years ago - and not applicable today.

What it has become in this modern day and age, is simply a "tool" for the manipulation of a presidential election, and is thus un-democratic and un-American and un-sound and un-reasonable. It serves no useful purpose whatsoever. Let's get rid of it.

I'm reminded of that geezer in Star Wars, episode 4, who said "The last vestiges of the old Republic have been swept away!" In spite of Dubya constantly prattling that our country is a democracy (democrazy), our country is a REPUBLIC, even though some are trying to transition it into an empire. The Electoral College is one of those vestiges.

Laz

[tugmcmartin]

Boy, didn't we already beat this horse about a year ago? Maybe more?

For a long time i was against the electoral college, basically because i didn't understand what its purpose was. I remember last time we discussed this i posted a link to a rather lengthy article outlining the pros and cons of the system. Was a very good and very educational read for me and basically pushed me to the pro-college camp. A couple of folks have already pointed out some of the reasons we have it. The foremost is that despite what most people believe, we are not a democracy... the US is a Republic, made up of states that all need to have their interests taken into account. That is the reason for the electoral college. Remember, we are the United STATES of America... not the United PEOPLE of America.

T-

[piece-it pete]

Boy, didn't we already beat this horse about a year ago? Maybe more?

For a long time i was against the electoral college, basically because i didn't understand what its purpose was. I remember last time we discussed this i posted a link to a rather lengthy article outlining the pros and cons of the system. Was a very good and very educational read for me and basically pushed me to the pro-college camp. A couple of folks have already pointed out some of the reasons we have it. The foremost is that despite what most people believe, we are not a democracy... the US is a Republic, made up of states that all need to have their interests taken into account. That is the reason for the electoral college. Remember, we are the United STATES of America... not the United PEOPLE of America.

T-

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

[Justlisten2]

I've got an idea, let the people vote for President!!! Voter turnout may even go up if people knew their vote actually counted. What a concept!

[JSE]

The people do and their vote does matter. Look at Florida.

JSE

[Justlisten2]

The people vote, but the electoral college picks the President. I meant that maybe the people could pick the President. A novel idea eh? The Electoral College was put in place because politicians didn't think the people had enough information to choose correctly. There was no TV or newspapers for many to see and read the issues back in the day. I beleive there is plenty of press coverage now to make the Electoral college go the way of the horse & buggy.

[JSE]

The people vote, but the electoral college picks the President. I meant that maybe the people could pick the President. A novel idea eh? The Electoral College was put in place because politicians didn't think the people had enough information to choose correctly. There was no TV or newspapers for many to see and read the issues back in the day. I beleive there is plenty of press coverage now to make the Electoral college go the way of the horse & buggy.

The electoral college does pick the President but it's based on the people's vote within each State. Remember, this is a Republic. The electoral college was put in place to give smaller states a say in the election. It was not because they thought people could not make an informed decision. It was to ensure a voice among ALL states. If there was no College, the majority of the States would never see a candidate or even have a say in who runs for President and who takes office. How is this fair? Again, like tugmcmartin said, this is a Republic not a democracy.

In regard to your point about there being enough press now to due away with the college. Sure, we all now how fair and unbaised the press is. That would work great as long as you are a liberal. How is that more fair than the electoral college? I don't think anyone wants Dan Rather and Peter Jennings picking our president.

Hell, let's just scrap the Constitution and start over. I am sure we can come up with something better. Politicians fight over putting a federal judge on the bench so I am sure they could rewrite the Constitution. Might take them 150 years, but I am sure they could do it.

JSE

[jack70]

What it has become in this modern day and age, is simply a "tool" for the manipulation of a presidential election, and is thus un-democratic and un-American and un-sound and un-reasonable. It serves no useful purpose whatsoever. Let's get rid of it.

I disagree on all 3 points. That last election is done (get over it). But elections have ALWAYS been "dirty" in some way or another... some more than others. Read Caro's first volume on how LBJ got into congress... just amazing history from the original sources. But you can study just about any period in the last 200 years and find similar crazy results.

Tug, I missed that discussion on the merits of the EC, but my own opinion is that it was instituted as just one of many compromises to get the constitution ratified by all parties involved. The smaller states simply didn't want to be marginalized (controlled) in a new national government. The one overriding aspect of our system of government was the new concept (truly revolutionary at the time) of protecting minority groups from the "tyranny of the majority" (which is what "true democracy" is... ie "mob rule"). It's the whole principal behind the Bill of Rights (although many amendments have been corrupted in real terms over the years). Farm/rural states simply wanted a buffer so that they wouldn't be at the mercy of the larger populations in the cities & big states, who theoretically could force them into a form of control (slavery) through congress. It's just one form of checks & balances that ensures a law has REAL broad support before it's approved. The concept of the Senate (unequal representation) is another such compromise that enabled all the states to compromise. It ain't perfect, but it's pretty good.

In todays modern world, the concept of 1-man/1-vote (direct vote) may seem more sensible, but I've heard some cogent arguments to keep it as it is. But I agree... it's a moot point -- the smaller states (who are a majority) will NEVER acquiesce to a constitutional amendment, which is the only way this will ever change.

The people vote, but the electoral college picks the President. I meant that maybe the people could pick the President. A novel idea eh? The Electoral College was put in place because politicians didn't think the people had enough information to choose correctly. There was no TV or newspapers for many to see and read the issues back in the day. I beleive there is plenty of press coverage now to make the Electoral college go the way of the horse & buggy.

That's true (I thought you were talking about a direct vote for the president), but that (archaic) aspect (electors) of the election process has just been a formality for a long time. It's pretty unlikely a single person (elector) could change an election, and less likely a group would do it.... but it's funny to think of the mess THAT would make. You think Fla raised a stink... LOL!

[tugmcmartin]

Tug, I missed that discussion on the merits of the EC, but my own opinion is that it was instituted as just one of many compromises to get the constitution ratified by all parties involved. The smaller states simply didn't want to be marginalized (controlled) in a new national government. The one overriding aspect of our system of government was the new concept (truly revolutionary at the time) of protecting minority groups from the "tyranny of the majority" (which is what "true democracy" is... ie "mob rule"). It's the whole principal behind the Bill of Rights (although many amendments have been corrupted in real terms over the years). Farm/rural states simply wanted a buffer so that they wouldn't be at the mercy of the larger populations in the cities & big states, who theoretically could force them into a form of control (slavery) through congress. It's just one form of checks & balances that ensures a law has REAL broad support before it's approved. The concept of the Senate (unequal representation) is another such compromise that enabled all the states to compromise. It ain't perfect, but it's pretty good.

Well Jack, it seems you didn't need to see it cuz you basically summed it up pretty nicely. It was one of many compromises to get the constitution ratified. The main idea behind it was, as you point out, that the smaller states didn't want to get their interests trampled on. The EC puts all states on an even playing field. Through the EC, no president can get elected without appealing to the interests of a good portion of the 50 states in our republic.

Not sure how many people saw it, but a few days after the 2000 election there was a map being published by a lot of newspapers that showed what states supported what candidates by coloring the states. Blue represented AlGore and Red represented Bush. Well, the map was a sea of red in the heartland, surrounded by blue along the coastal areas. This was pretty predictable since those states tend to be more urban and populous and tend to vote democrat anyway. When i saw that map, i thought it really accurately portrayed the importance of the EC. 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. It wouldn't serve the Union of the States very well if a president, to get elected, only needed to appeal to 4 of the 50 states (or however may there were at the time of the ratification) to get elected. A president basing policy decisions solely on the basis of a few states interests wouldn't be good for the country as a whole. Thus the EC.

T-

[jack70]

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. It wouldn't serve the Union of the States very well if a president, to get elected, only needed to appeal to 4 of the 50 states (or however may there were at the time of the ratification) to get elected. A president basing policy decisions solely on the basis of a few states interests wouldn't be good for the country as a whole. Thus the EC.

This brings up a similar future "problem" I see as possible in some states if the growth of government continues at it's inevitable pace. (I'm a libertarian, and larger & larger government, as a percentage of GNP is not an economically healthy thing IMO).

You could possibly have a majority of the voters being dependent (beholden) on government (teachers, government employees, and contracted firms, etc) to the point where a candidate (governor) appeals only to their interests (unions etc). It's another aspect of the "tyrany of the majority", which the founders saw as dangerous (direct democracy).

You saw a little of this in Calif where G Davis gave the corrections union retirement benefits that are simply criminal, in return for votes and election help. (it's also a problem in many cities with police unions etc) You have guys who can retire at 40 and collect 85%(or something) of their max yearly wage for the rest of their lives (30-50 years). They put in the OT during one year to get that max wage up around the $100K range, and get a yearly retirement wage (for the next 40+ years) that's higher than their average yearly wage for their 20-year career. It's nuts, and we wonder why taxes keep going up.

The founders were well aware of putting too much power in any one place, because they understood man as inherently flawed (bad). They were right.... most people are not of the highest character or wise enough to be trusted directly with other people's liberty all by themselves. If human's (human nature) were so enlightened, socialism would work too. Alas, there are people that still believe that bunk too.

[Justlisten2]

JSE:

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. The Electoral College is a combination of House and Senate seats. So yes, a voter in a smaller state's vote counts more than a voter in a larger state. Is this fair? I don't think the smaller state's vote should be belittled, but why should it be raised? All votes should be created equal, IMHO. How can the people pick one man, but the political system pick another? Because our voices aren't equal.
Is it fair? No.
Is there a good reason that votes aren't equal? Maybe back when inter-state commerce was life and death, but certainly not necessary anymore, in these global economic times.

[JSE]

JSE:

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. The Electoral College is a combination of House and Senate seats. So yes, a voter in a smaller state's vote counts more than a voter in a larger state. Is this fair? I don't think the smaller state's vote should be belittled, but why should it be raised? All votes should be created equal, IMHO. How can the people pick one man, but the political system pick another? Because our voices aren't equal.
Is it fair? No.
Is there a good reason that votes aren't equal? Maybe back when inter-state commerce was life and death, but certainly not necessary anymore, in these global economic times.

I think your thinking is a little backwards there. You can just as easy make the opposite argument that the House seats give an unfair advantage to larger states. Maybe that's why our founding fathers made the electoral college a combination of the Senate and the House? To even the playing field. You don't seem to get the idea that we are a Republic, not a Democracy. Our constitution does not call for the individual citizens to elect the President vote for vote. It gives every State a more equal say. I understand that some people think we are a true democracy, but that's not the case.

" How can the people pick one man, but the political system pick another? Because our voices aren't equal."

Again, the collective will of the States pick the President. Not the will of the people in only the largest States. Like I mentioned before. If there was no college, each candidate would spend his time in California, Texas, NY, Florida and a couple of others. Alaska? The only time a candidate would go there is on vacation. Is this fair? If there was no college, don't you think some states and the people in those states would be a little angry that their vote is worthless? Would this cause a little unrest? I bet it would.

One thing is for sure. The founding fathers knew what they were doing and it seems to have worked pretty well so far. What would happen if Bush wins the popular vote in 2004 and Kerry (good bet) wins the electoral college? Do you think the left would still be complaining about the system? I doubt it. For that matter, would the right suddenly throw a fit about the system? Probably. It comes down to this. There is always going to be a sore looser in Politics

JSE

[Justlisten2]

To say that it is the collective will of the States that picks the President, and not the will of the people in the larger states, seems to say that you don't feel everyone's vote should be equal. I think your thinking is backwards. We should just agree to disagree. I will say to the end, all votes should be equal, period, end of story. I don't care who it would cost in the next election. The Electoral College is a bad idea that has long out stayed it's welcome. There is NO reason why my vote in Pennsylvania should mean less than a vote in Montana, but more than a vote in California. That's just stupid.

BTW, I see in another thread 'Forcing Religion' that you have no children. Perhaps as the years go by, and you have children and learn more about life and it's difficulties, we may see eye to eye more. I have three teenage sons, one in college. That may help to explain our different views.
Personally, I don't believe there is one true religion. I beleive it's how you live your life, not what building you're in on Sunday (or Saturday). Do your best to live your life by the 10 commandments and the Bible, and you should be okay. I think a lot of it comes down to 'judge not lest ye be judged'. Which, in my mind means that if you are harsh in judgement of others, you will be judged harshly come judgement day. However, if you are kind and understanding of others failures, God will be kind and understanding of your own failures come judgement day.

That's just my opinion of course, feel free to take it with a grain of salt.

[nobody]

I really have no business in this thread since I have no strong opinion on this one either way. I see pros and cons on both sides and haven't really made up my mind her.

But, I just had to jump in since I just noticed one of my biggest pet peves. The whole "you couldn't possibly understand my evolved viewpoints because I have children and you do not" crap bugs me to no end. Personally, I have made what I consider an entirely valid and mature decision not to reproduce. Does that mean that for the rest of my life even when discussing something as unrelated as the pros and cons of the electoral college, I am going to forever be haunted be the specter of my lack of offspring?

How on earth could having children make your opinion about the electoral college more valid or more evolved than any one else's? And, before you say that's not what you meant, I must ask why then would you toss in the bit about once someone has kids and learn more about life they may start to agree with you?

Like I said, probably shouldn't even jump in here, this one just always touches a nerve.

Thank you for not breeding.

[JSE]

Hey Nobody,

That kind of irks me as well when people say that. Justlisten is a good guy so I don't take offense to it but the whole childless argument does not make much sense. My wife and I get that all the time. The whole "when you mature and have kids" thing really irks me. I have many friends who had children way before they were really ready and it has lead to divorse, unhappy marriages and financial problems in some cases. My wife and I want kids but we know we are not ready for them. We are to sellfish right now. There are things WE want to do first. If anything, I feel we are far more mature than most people our age because we understand we are not ready. We will have kids, but only when we are both ready and the time is right. Our friends also make remarks about how much we travel. They always say "when you have kids it won't be that easy." EXACTLY! We totally understand this and that's why we are doing it now. That's sounds pretty mature to me.

Not having kids also has nothing to do with my views on the Electoral College. I have thought about it and I can't think of how it would. Maybe I am missing something. One last thing about the Electoral College. If we were to do away with the College, do you think people in smaller states would even take the time to vote knowing there vote is worthless. Why would they vote in Oklahoma. The whole state could vote for one party and it would not matter. The Electoral College gives every state a say in the election. A straight vote would simply give a few large states a say. That would not be fair, would it?

JSE

[Justlisten2]

A straight vote would give every person in the country a fair say, that would not be fair, would it?

Nobody, the 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. It's like talking transportation with someone who has no driver's license. We will have different viewpoints. I don't think myself superior, I'm just pointing out the difference you cannot comprehend. I've had no children and I've had children, so I know the difference. Mine were accidental. If that bugs you, I understand, because you will never comprehend what it means. Reading books can't help you either. It's like a woman writing a book on what it's like to be a man. You have to be one to truely understand one. That doesn't make a man better, only different. Hopefully you're both not young guys in your twenties just popping off. Maybe I'll play the older wiser card then. If your in your forties with no children, then at least you've experienced a little more of life to understand. I find arguing with young guys in their twenties a waste. They're still too close to teenagers, and like my own teenagers, I know you 'know it all' . hehe

[nobody]

Nope, not a young un, just no kids, by choice.

Not a Republican either. I would have thought your highly attuned scenses could have discovered that, considering you automatically have such a more comprehensive view of the world thanks to the fact that you have reproduced.

Sorry, I just find it highly amusing that you have this notion that you somehow comprehend more by virtue of having a kid. Hate to break the news to ya, but it ain't brain surgery. Anybody with healthy organs can produce a kid. It ain't a big accomplishment, and it doesn't embue you with some vast store of knowledge.

It reminds me of when my wife worked as a social worker for abused and neglected kids. She'd always get told, "you couldn't possibly understand...you don't have kids." Her response was generally along the lines of "I may not have kids, but I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to **** them and beat them with an extention cord until they end up in the hospital."

Point is, you think you have some sort of special knowledge by having kids. You don't. Having kids puts you in a not-so-exclusive catagory with the vast majority of the human population. Sorry, I''m not part of the club, but I still have fully-realized thoughts and opinions about issues and there are many people, both with and without child that both agree and disagree with me on all of them. The notion that if I were to have a child I would therefore join the great enlightened child bearing conciousness and share some sort of communal thought process and enlightened world view is laughable.

This may sound harsh, but to me, it is no more harsh than condescending remarks about how childless people are somehow unable to comprehand the vast wisdom of the sacred sect of the parent.

[JSE]

One thing is for sure. Myself and my wife are mature enough to not accidentally have kids. I believe adults who don't have kids right away and wait until they are TRULY ready are far more mature than people who have kids when they are to young or "accidentally".

By the way, I'm 33 so I guess I am between the "popping off" age and the "experienced" age.

Maybe one day we can all be as old and wise as you.

JSE

[Justlisten2]

By the way, you won't really understand until you have at least two children. They have to have a sibling to fight with. You boys really got a chip on your shoulder, LOL. It's pointless carrying this any further. You could never describe what the world looks like to a blind person. ROTFLMAO. You are obviously of such vast intelligence that I must bow in your presence. You're all right, the Electoral college is the wave of the future. Enjoy your sad lives. Unbeleivable how you get your panties in a bunch over such small details .ROTFLMAO!!!! hhaahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahhaahahahhaahhahahahahaahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahhahahhahahahahahahhahahahah ahahahahahahhaahhahahahahahahahhahahaahhahahahahah ahhahahahahahahahahaahhahahahaahhaahaha.....you get the point, you're smart guys.

[nobody]

Silly me. I keep thinking that in a discussion you should try to make some sort of factual statements. I keep forgetting that typed laughter and lots of exclamation marks are the way to go.

[JSE]

By the way, you won't really understand until you have at least two children. They have to have a sibling to fight with. You boys really got a chip on your shoulder, LOL. It's pointless carrying this any further. You could never describe what the world looks like to a blind person. ROTFLMAO. You are obviously of such vast intelligence that I must bow in your presence. You're all right, the Electoral college is the wave of the future. Enjoy your sad lives. Unbeleivable how you get your panties in a bunch over such small details .ROTFLMAO!!!! hhaahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahhaahahahhaahhahahahahaahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahhahahhahahahahahahhahahahah ahahahahahahhaahhahahahahahahahhahahaahhahahahahah ahhahahahahahahahahaahhahahahaahhaahaha.....you get the point, you're smart guys.

Wow,

Maybe I should not have kids? Look what they do to you. You start acting like them!

JSE

[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:

The electoral college does pick the President but it's based on the people's vote within each State. Remember, this is a Republic. The electoral college was put in place to give smaller states a say in the election. It was not because they thought people could not make an informed decision. It was to ensure a voice among ALL states. If there was no College, the majority of the States would never see a candidate or even have a say in who runs for President and who takes office. How is this fair? Again, like tugmcmartin said, this is a Republic not a democracy.

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!